Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENTS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL

To be read the Third time upon Monday next.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

HASTINGS PIER BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

METHODIST CHURCH FUNDS BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

PETITION

Retirement Pensioners

Mr. Prentice: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I beg leave to present a Petition asking for cheap fares for retirement pensioners on the London Transport system. This Petition has been organised by the Needy Old-Age Pensioners Coal and Food Fund Society, an organisation in my constituency which has given wonderful help to pensioners in many ways. It is supported by the signatures of over 10,000 people from all political parties and all walks of life in East Ham and the surrounding districts.
The Petition draws attention to the fact that the inadequate level of pensions means that many pensioners are unable to afford journeys by public transport to visit relatives and to make shopping expeditions, etc., and that they may have to give up such journeys or walk distances which are exhausting and perhaps bad for their health.
The Petition concludes with these words:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that a system of reduced fares for pensioners be introduced in the London Transport system to enable pensioners on production of their pension book to travel any distance for 3d. between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. and midnight when the buses are not full to capacity.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

ALIENS AND BRITISH PROTECTED PERSONS (NATURALISATION)

Address for Return,
showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens and British Protected Persons to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1959, been registered or recorded at the Home Office; and (2) Particulars of cases in which persons previously naturalised have been deprived of their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies during the same period."—[Mr. Renton.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Building Societies

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the approximate working costs of building societies as a percentage of their turnover; and if he will make a statement.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I am informed by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies that in 1959 management expenses of the building society movement as a whole amounted to 14s. 10d. per year for every £100 of mean mortgage balances. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment.

Mr. Osborne: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, on that figure, the building societies are providing a wonderful social service to the country at a remarkably low figure?

Mr. Barber: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the overwhelming majority of building societies are certainly performing a most valuable national service.

Mr. H. Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the costs of building societies and the charge on mortgages to their clients are going to be raised owing to the appalling decision announced this morning?

Mr. Barber: That is not for me to answer.

Steel Industry (Denationalisation)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now state when he proposes to complete the denationalisation of the steel industry.

Mr. Barber: I regret that there is nothing that I can usefully add to the statements which my right hon. Friends and I have recently made about this matter.

Mr. Ridley: As there are still ten companies valued at some £40 million in I.S.H.R.A., will not my hon. Friend press on with this matter, since it is now

seven years since the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, was passed?

Mr. Barber: I have said before that it is the Government's hope that within the lifetime of the present Parliament the Agency will complete its duty of substantially returning the industry to private enterprise. I might add that we are very hopeful that conditions will be such that the Agency will be able to make significant progress during the course of this year.

Mr. Chetwynd: Have not the Government yet learned that it would be better for this industry to be held in public hands as a great national asset?

Members (Secretarial Facilities)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from the House authorities about the provision of a copying machine for the free use of hon. Members.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the provision of special paper for the copying machine in the Fees Office which is already available for the use of Members. Hon. Members are already allowed to draw free supplies of stationery from the Serjeant at Arms stores, up to a limit of £8 per annum. My right hon. Friend is proposing to raise this limit to £10 per annum, as from the 1st October next, so that Members may if they so desire also draw free of charge a reasonable quantity of the paper required for this machine. A notice about this will be circulated in the Whip.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Member aware that his assumption is entirely wrong? I am referring not to free paper but to the provision of a copying machine, a matter which was raised with his right hon. Friend on 24th May by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who pointed out that at present hon. Members are involved in great cost by having to pay 6d. a copy for the use of the present copying machine in the Fees Office. Is he aware that my hon. Friend said that we wanted additional machines made available free of charge and that the right hon. Gentleman said that the matter would be considered?

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Lady makes further representations on the matter, I will, of course, receive them. I must say that I have tried to answer what I thought was in the minds of hon. Members, and I hope that the announcement which I have made today will be helpful, at any rate to some hon. Members.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: If the Government really intend to take up this stingy and pettifogging attitude, will the hon. Gentleman use his influence so that I am allowed to lend a copying machine to the House for the free use of hon. Members, together with paper, and to install it so that he can watch how it works and how it is used and then consider taking the thing over at the beginning of next Session?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that we want to keep a sense of proportion about this matter. A copying machine is already available for the use of hon. Members and we are increasing the amount of free stationery which hon. Members can use on the copying machine, so the hon. Member will agree that there has been some progress.

Mrs. Castle: Does the hon. Member's answer mean that in future no charge will be made to hon. Members for the use of the copying machine in the Fees Office for which a charge is made at present?

Mr. Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of installing a central dictation system in the House for the use of hon. Members.

Sir E. Boyle: The cost of a central system of 20 machines such as the hon. Member suggested on an earlier occasion would be about £2,000 for installation and £20,000 per annum for operation.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the usual practice of business firms is to enter into a hire contract with the supplier and that the cost of such a hire contract, I am informed, would work out at about £6,000 a year, including maintenance. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is worth having at any rate a trial run with the installation of a few sets of this system to see whether it might solve the problem of hon. Member's heavy secretarial costs?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that this question raises fairly large issues about the financial privileges of hon. Members. The Select Committee of 1954 did not recommend free secretarial services, and although I would like to consider the suggestion, it raises much wider issues going beyond what one can deal with in answer to supplementary questions.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that modern devices which facilitate the recording and dissemination of ideas very often result in less thought being given to their formulation?

Sir E. Boyle: That is what might be called a pemmican utterance.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the extension of the repayment of post-war credits to all persons who are officially recognised as severely disabled.

Sir E. Boyle: There are serious difficulties about this suggestion, but I will keep it in mind.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is contrary to the intention of the Chancellor and of Parliament that persons like Mr. Walton, whose case I have submitted, should not be able to get their postwar credits, although more severely disabled than many who are in the categories announced by the Chancellor? As these persons are classified at the employment exchange as severely disabled, are they not a definable category in the same way as other pensioners?

Sir E. Boyle: I understand the force of the argument, but we took very good care when we considered which categories should be included this year on both hardship and administrative grounds. It is not an easy question. I cannot add to what I have said today, but I assure the hon. Member that the matter will be constantly borne in mind.

National Theatre

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards the building of a national theatre on the South Bank of the Thames.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is still discussing certain aspects of this issue with the Arts Council.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that he gave me a reply of that description on 11th February? In view of the change in the general climate, has there not been a change in the financial climate as well since that time?

Sir E. Boyle: The answer I gave on 11th February is still true. It is an extremely important decision. As the hon. Member knows, we have a new chairman of the Arts Council. This is a matter in which it would be better for the Government to keep the House in a state of slight impatience rather than make a premature decision.

Economic Situation

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the unsatisfactory state of the balance of payments, the small rise in the gold reserves, the recent increase in the West German Bank rate, and the consequent unsettling effect on the value of the £ sterling, what steps he proposes taking to maintain its stability.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): A healthy external position is closely linked to a sound balance in the internal economy. As I said in my Budget statement, our purpose is to ensure that
our policies are adapted to changing circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 45.]
A number of steps have already been taken to restrain the growth of credit, and the measures announced this morning are intended to reinforce these steps.
At the same time, the Government have been reviewing the level of capital expenditure in the public sector. The increased rate of expenditure in this field is now beginning to diminish, although there will be small increases in the next two quarters of this financial year. But the Government are arranging that the programme of expenditure on investment in the public sector for 1961–62 will be held at the level of the current programme for the present financial year.

Mr. Rankin: I thank the right 'hon. Gentleman for that statement. Is he not

aware that the step he has taken this morning in raising the Bank Rate to 6 per cent. reveals his continuing friendly attitude towards the moneylenders? Why does he continue to disregard the excellent proposals of the Opposition about the selective control of imports, which would keep the balance of payments healthy, help and not paralyse local authorities, and also prevent the fluctuations in Bank Rate which upset industry, and particularly those hon. Members who represent industry and who sit behind him?

Mr. Amory: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we believe that the Labour Party policies to which he referred would have precisely the opposite effect in practice. The object of all the steps I have taken is to maintain the economy in balance and to keep off inflation. In general the economy today is in a very healthy state, and I mean to do my best to keep it so.

Mr. H. Wilson: How can the Chancellor say that the economy is in a healthy state when the gilt-edged market is at its lowest level almost within recorded memory, When exports are failing to rise as much as imports and when there are long delivery dates for important materials, for instance, to British Railways? After all these years of experience and the Radcliffe Report, is not the right hon. Gentleman yet aware that this over-reliance on the monetary weapon simply means penalising local authorities and people building houses with the help of mortgages, and is also inimical to private and public investment? Will not the right hon. Gentleman move into the modern age and try to produce more up-to-date methods of dealing with the situation?

Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking in a spirit of extreme envy. He knows perfectly well that he is very envious of the management of the economy which has resulted in high production, a high level of employment and a stable price level for more than two years.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement that the level of public expenditure will be restrained in the coming year will be greatly welcomed by many people, not only in this House but in the country as a whole? Is he


aware that many people believe that the rise in the Bank Rate would not have been necessary if he had been able to restrain Government expenditure this year?

Mr. Wilson: Is the Chancellor aware that nobody envies a Chancellor who has got himself into such a mess that he has to have a 6 per cent. Bank Rate so early in the season when perhaps a worsening of the situation gives him little room for manoeuvre in the summer and autumn? Secondly, since he has failed to answer the question put by my hon. Friend, is he aware that our complaint is that in failing to control some excrescences of private expenditure, particularly in regard to private luxuries, speculation in land, and the rest, the Chancellor always takes what is for the Tory the easy way out, and that is jumping on essential public expenditure by local authorities?

Mr. Amory: What I know is that steps are much more effective in avoiding possible risks and dangers if they are taken in good time.

Hire Purchase (Restrictions)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the financial effects to date of the restrictions he recently imposed on hire-purchase transactions.

Mr. Amory: It is too early yet to assess accurately the effect of these restrictions.

Mr. Lipton: Apart from the unfortunate victims who are being sacked as a result of deliberate Government policy, is it not fairly obvious that when our economy is precariously balanced on a knife edge the deceptive prosperity of last October was just another piece of election trickery on the part of the Tory Party?

Mr. Amory: On the contrary; people who had never had it so good last autumn are having it still better today, over the nation as a whole. It is true that with our economy there is comparatively little room for manoeuvre, and that makes it very important that steps either way should be taken in time.

European Common Market

Mr. Thorneycroft: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the stage which negotiations with the Common Market have now reached.

Mr. Amory: Discussions between the Common Market countries, other members of the O.E.E.C., the United States and Canada, took place in the Committee on Trade Problems in Paris on 9th-10th June. The Committee set up a study group to examine the way in which reciprocal tariff concessions could be achieved and to seek solutions to immediate trade difficulties in particular products. The Committee also decided that it would discuss the long-term aspects of the trade relations between the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the farsighted broadcast by President de Gaulle to the French people on 1st June? Will my right hon. Friend take the statement of political, economic and social aims stated there for the European Economic Community as the basis for discussions between us, the French and their colleagues in the Common Market?

Mr. Amory: I have read President de Gaulle's statement with very great interest. I am quite sure that the United Kingdom and our partners in the Europan Free Trade Association will be very glad to enter into negotiations with the members of the European Economic Community on the basis of that statement.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the Chancellor agree that, although we want to seize any initiative which is proffered in this very difficult matter, there is something of a gap between what the right hon. Gentleman called the far-sighted announcement of President de Gaulle and the rather less than far-sighted approach of some of his negotiators? Is not this one of the main difficulties which the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade are having to face?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he will encourage the Leader of the House to provide time for us to have a real debate on this


question before long? We know that it is a difficult problem. We know that the Government have no policy to put forward in this matter—for reasons not entirely within their own control—but this is a matter upon which, with wisdom, the views of the House as a whole might be sought at this very critical state in the history of these matters.

Mr. Amory: I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, namely, that a solution depends upon the good will of all concerned and a willingness to compromise on both sides. With that willingness to compromise we in the European Free Trade Association—as we made clear after the Lisbon meeting—have no doubts that solutions can be found.
As for the question of a debate, I am sure that if time can be found we shall welcome a debate on this important subject. I certainly could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that part of his supplementary question which implied that the Government have no policy in this matter. We have a very clear and definite policy, which we have explained to the House on many occasions.

Departmental Expenditure (Estimates)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury adopted the practice of demanding estimates of expenditure two years before the money was needed by spending Departments; and whether he will publish such estimates.

Mr. Amory: The practice of calling for estimates of Supply expenditure by Departments for some two years ahead was initiated by the Treasury in 1949. The studies currently in progress on the subject of control and management of Government expenditure will cover the question of the use of longer-term appraisals of the likely course of that expenditure. Until these studies are completed, I think that we must keep an open mind on the question of the publication of such forecasts.

Mr. Lipton: Has the Chancellor considered the very interesting remarks made by the Comptroller and Auditor General at the Conference of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers? Does he realise that the House is in a real diffi

culty in understanding and controlling the mounting Government expenditure which is now taking place unless it is given an opportunity of knowing about these long-range estimates, as I may call them, in good time?

Mr. Amory: I am aware of the Comptroller and Auditor General's remarks. I would only say that we are very anxious to do everything we can to ensure that the House has the fullest reliable information that can be made available to it so that it can exercise proper control.

Trustee Securities (Value)

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since the purchasing power of money has fallen to one-third of its pre-war value, and the price of the £2,000 million 3½ per cent. War Loan has fallen from over par to its lowest ever of 60½ per cent., thus depriving holders of nearly 40 per cent. of their capital, and about 80 per cent. of the real value of their investment, what new steps he proposes to take to improve the value of all trustee securities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: Ultimately, the maintenance of the value of all fixed-interest securities depends upon the avoidance of inflation. In this the Government are determined, as recent events have shown, to play their part. In the short term, fluctuations in market values of fixed-interest securities depend upon the movement of the level of interest rates.

Mr. Osborne: Since the higher Bank Rate produces so many social evils, cannot inflation be checked by making money scarcer rather than dearer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] I am reading something that is important. Is there no other way of making money scarcer than by increasing the bank special deposits, which cause banks to have to sell gilt-edged and therefore depress the market still further? Finally, is it not true that there is no hope for the holders of trustee stocks until the Government really cut expenditure, so that we are a net saver of money and start to reduce the National Debt? When is that happy day going to come?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend will hardly expect me to answer all the questions he has asked in the short time available in Question and Answer. I assure


him that the object of the increase in the Bank Rate is to effect stability in the economy and therefore, in the long run, to help exactly the people that he has in mini more than any other section of the country. That is the whole object of the exercise, and nothing else. Therefore, I cannot agree with him that an increase in the Bank Rate has the net effect of imposing social hardship on our people. When it is used effectively its net effect is precisely the opposite.

Mr. Jay: But is not the whole trouble due to the fact that the Government have left themselves practically no weapon of control except a higher interest rate and, therefore, that whenever we have a balance of payments crisis the Government's only remedy is to slow down investment, both public and private?

Mr. Amory: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jay: Then why is the Chancellor raising the Bank Rate?

Mr. Amory: In my opinion, the effect of this increase in the Bank Rate will not be seriously to affect the present level of investment expenditure in industry. Investment expenditure at present has very great momentum, and I think that that will continue. As for the more important projects of industrial investment, I think that they will continue to go forward.

Domestic Heating Appliances (Tax)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the electricity boards are unwilling to sell electricity block storage heaters for use in domestic premises because of the high rate of Purchase Tax they attract; and if he will reduce the rate of tax, so that electricity boards may make this facility available in homes.

Mr. Amory: All domestic electric heating appliances are taxed at the standard rate, which is 25 per cent.; the right hon. Member's suggestion would introduce discrimination where it does not now exist.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this new form of domestic heater cannot exist until per

mission is given by the Treasury for it to be sold for domestic purposes? At the moment, the industry is threatened that if these are sold for domestic purposes the Purchase Tax charge will be applied to the industrial storage heater as well. Is not the sensible thing to do at least to allow this cow to come into existence before we kill it. We may be able to milk it for Purchase Tax later, but at the moment there is nothing in existence, because industry cannot sell these excellent heaters for domestic purposes.

Mr. Amory: There is no restriction by the Treasury on the sale of this equipment.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that—

Mr. Speaker: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was rising to give notice that he would raise the matter again. If not, I am afraid I have called the next Question.

Foreign Importers' Drafts

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the still continuing loss of foreign currency earnings and the long-term damage to London as an international financial centre, he will now reconsider his previous refusals to allow again the use of foreign importers' drafts.

Mr. Amory: I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 2nd February.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Chancellor recall that on that date—now some months ago—he said that he had in mind the possibility of making this change back to what the situation was before the last crisis? Can he therefore give any indication whether what he has in mind will be translated into action? Secondly, has he had any expert advice—including advice from the Bank of England—which supports him in his attitude?

Mr. Amory: Responsibility here is clearly mine. To follow the course recommended by my hon. Friend would lead to a deferment of foreign exchange receipts by the United Kingdom, and that consideration at present outweighs the comparatively small additional earnings that would accrue.

3½ Per Cent. War Loan (Price)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage fall in the price of 3½ per cent. War Loan since October, 1951.

Mr. Amory: Thirty-one per cent.

Mr. Jay: Is it really in accordance with Government policy that these enormous losses should be inflicted on investors in this stock, many of whom are quite small? Will the Chancellor now tell us precisely what he hopes to achieve by this further rise in the Bank Rate, which must mean still lower gilt-edged prices?

Mr. Amory: I have already explained that my object is to ensure a continuing balance in the economy and a continuing stable price level. Those two objects, if achieved, are the very best service that can be rendered to holders of Government stocks.

Mr. Lipton: When is the Chancellor going to resign?

Mr. Amory: That is a different question.

Mr. C. Osborne: Surely the doubling of the special deposits by the banks must compel them to sell more gilt-edged stock. It must. The Midland Bank today is just on the verge of 30 per cent convertibility. The doubling of these special deposits must cause the gilt-edged market to go down still further. Is there no other way of protecting holders of trustee stocks?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend had better wait to see how it works out.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that even before this disastrous decision the Opposition had decided to approach the Government with a view to having an economic debate to discuss the seriously deteriorating economic situation. In that connection, as the result of this morning's decision the case for a debate is even stronger. Will the Chancellor use the interval between now and the date of that debate to reread the Radcliffe Report?

Mr. Speaker: Without the semblance of reproof to the right hon. Gentleman, I would point out that the time has come

when I must appeal to all hon. Members not to usurp the time of the House at Question Time by giving verbal notices.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Canned Beer

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce regulations under the appropriate Weights and Measures Acts or Merchandise Marks Acts to ensure that accurate measures of the contents are clearly marked on cans of beer.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I think that it would be preferable to deal with this matter in the Weights and Measures Bill which is now in preparation.

Mr. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some brewery companies print the words "Two-glass size" on cans of beer, but that when they are emptied they are found not to contain a glass and a half? Is he aware that this is only one example of misleading labelling? How much longer must we wait before anything is done to protect the public against this kind of swindling?

Mr. Maudling: I do not know that I accept the word "swindling", but I share the hon. Member's interest in this matter and I agree that the situation is not satisfactory as it stands. But it would be better to bring this and other similar matters together in one Bill. This is now practically ready, and I hope that it will be presented in the next Session.

Crofting Counties

Mr. Willis: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs were provided in the seven crofting counties in 1959; and how many it is expected to provide in 1960.

Mr. Maudlin: I am aware of approximately 2,000 new jobs in 1959 and, on present estimates, nearly 700 new jobs in 1960.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is most unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that the Crofters Commission in its latest report has said that, in spite of all that is being


done, there is no likelihood of any in-surge of employment in the area? In view of this, will he drop some of his doctrinaire prejudices and consult the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to introducing some public enterprise work into the area?

Mr. Maudling: In fact, the latest figures show that the number of unemployed in this area has been falling while the number of the totally insured population has been rising, so progress is being made. But I quite agree that further progress is necessary.

Oil and Petrol Distribution

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made to him from petroleum companies and from motor trade associations on the suggestion, made in the last annual report of the Monopolies Commission, that oil and petrol distribution should be referred to the Commission for inquiry; if he will list the companies and associations concerned; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: Since the Annual Report by the Board of Trade for the year ended 31st December, 1959, I have received two letters on this subject: neither was from a petroleum company or a motor trade association. I have, however, seen advertisements in the Press on this matter. I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's Answer of 2nd June.

Mr. Darling: May we take it that the petrol companies have not shown any eagerness to have their operations publicly examined? In view of the comment in the annual report to the President, did the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that when the oil companies reduced the price of petrol a few days ago they all reduced the price of the same grades by precisely the same amount at the same time? Is not that at least prima facie evidence of collective price fixing in contravention of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, and, in view of all the discussions that are going on, is not the President of the Board of Trade failing in his duty if he refuses still to ask the Monopolies Commission to make this examination?

Mr. Maudling: There is a difference between price leadership and price fixing.

We are considering further references to the Commission, but I cannot make any statement yet on what they will be.

Mr. Darling: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

European Free Trade (Working Party)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the personnel and programme of the Working Party set up to examine whether the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association conforms with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; and what is his estimate of the bearing this examination will have on Scottish trade and industry.

Mr. Maudling: The Working Party made a report on the Stockholm Convention to the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade who have agreed to put the subject on the agenda for their next Session, due to begin on 31st October. The countries represented on the Working Party were Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay. This G.A.T.T. examination is not concerned with the particular matters to which the hon. and learned Member refers. I have no doubt that Scottish trade and industry will benefit from our membership of the E.F.T.A.

Mr. Hughes: Does the President realise that the last part of his Answer is quite inadequate? Can he say whether this Convention will in any way improve Scottish trade and industry, which already is suffering from Government's policy and the breaking of Government promises made at the last General Election? Is not it time that the Government carried out some of those promises to bring trade and industry to north-east Scotland?

Mr. Maudling: I have a little difficulty in detecting any connection between the supplementary question and the hon. and learned Gentleman's original Question,


but in our view the general effect of the Outer Seven agreement, as we might call it, will be beneficial to Scottish trade.

Mr. Willis: Not on the shale oil industry.

Hire Purchase (Restrictions)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations his Department has had with industry about discharge of labour due to recent restrictions on hire-purchase trading.

Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.

Mr. Jay: Did the President notice that Messrs. Hoovers released 400 workers in Scotland, 300 in Wales and only 100 in London, where there are many alternative types of employment available? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is an obligation upon him in cases like this to see that if there have to be releases of labour they are made in a sensible fashion?

Mr. Maudling: It is difficult to go into individual cases without knowing all the details, but this is probably a case more for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Jay: At least the President will agree that, whatever the precise merits of the case, there is an obligation on his Department to consult the firms in these cases?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think we can consult them until they approach us. But I hope that all firms will do their best when they have to declare redundancies to see that it is done in areas where there is more work available rather than in areas of high unemployment.

United Turkey Red Company, Dunbartonshire

Mr. Steele: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware of the offer of the Calico Printers' Association to purchase the shares of the United Turkey Red Company, Alexandria, Dunbartonshire; and, in view of the recent loan of £400,000 under the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee to the United Turkey Red Company, what steps he is prepared to take to ensure the object of the Loan, namely, to provide employment in an area of high unemployment, will be achieved;
(2) if his approval was sought by the Board of the United Turkey Red Company, Alexandria, Dunbartonshire, before they issued a statement to their shareholders advising them to accept an offer by the Calico Printers' Association for the purchase of their shares, in view of the recent loan by the Treasury of £400,000 under Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee to the United Turkey Red Company.

Mr. Maudling: The loan agreement made between Her Majesty's Government and the United Turkey Red Company does not require the approval of the Board to an offer for the purchase of the company's shares. It does not and could not in practice contain conditions forcing the Company to continue to provide employment at its works. But I am aware of the need for employment in the Dumbarton area, and I hope that, whether or not the offer by the Calico Printers' Association for the shares is accepted, employment will continue to be provided at these works.

Mr. Steele: Will the President agree that the only purpose of this loan from the Government to the United Turkey Red Company was to provide work for the people of Alexandria? If the takeover bid takes place, may I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will consult the Calico Printers' Association to ensure that work will be continued in that factory?
Regarding Question No. 25, is the President aware that the preference shareholders had to sign away their rights to the heritable assets of the company to the Government before the loan was granted, which means that the Government are now the first preference shareholders of this company? Does not this mean that they have some rights in the matter? Will the President look at the legal issues involved to ensure that they have some right to interfere?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly look into the legal point. I do not think the effect of the agreement is as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We have been in touch with the Calico Printers' Association and pointed out that the Government very much hope that nothing which is done will create greater difficulty in the employment situation at Dunbartonshire. But we could not possibly make it a condition of a D.A.T.A.C.


loan that a company receiving the loan should not go out of business. That is not practicable. But we ensure that if a company goes out of business we get our money back. That is the protection we have for public funds.

Russian Fuel Oil (Import)

Mr. Fitch: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what date he authorised a cement firm, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Wigan, to import Russian fuel oil; and if he will make a statement on the conditions attached thereto.

Mr. Maudling: Licences have been issued since February, 1958. These have been subject to the normal conditions attaching to all import licences.

Mr. Fitch: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this fuel oil is being imported at about one-third of the cost of British refined fuel oil and, if so, does he think that competition with such agreements is likely to help the coal industry to get rid of its surplus coal?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think, even were I aware of it, that I could disclose the price paid by an individual consumer. In 1958 and early in 1959 some imports of fuel oil were licensed, and a special exemption was made in this case because the company entered into large capital commitments based on the use of Soviet oil with the knowledge of the Government at the time, and so we thought it right to make an exception, but only to this particular case.

South African Goods (Marking)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that all South African goods entering this country are easily identifiable as such.

Mr. Maudling: There is no statutory requirement that South African goods should be identified as such, but where the Merchandise Marks Acts require the application of an indication of origin, that indication—so far as South African goods are concerned—may, at the option of the person applying the mark, be either the word "Empire", or a definite indication of the country in which the goods were manufactured or produced, for example, "Made in South Africa".

Mr. Dugdale: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is just the sort of statement he has made which causes the difficulty? The word "Empire" does not necessarily convey to people that goods are made in South Africa. Is he aware that many people wish to have the choice of whether they buy South African goods or not and the word "Empire does not give an opportunity for them to exercise that choice?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think it was the purpose of Parliament when passing the Merchandise Marks Acts that they should be used for the political purpose which the hon. Member has in mind.

European Common Market Countries (British Firms)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British firms are opening factories in countries of the European Common Market; and what effect this will have on United Kingdom exports.

Mr. Maudling: We do not know how many United Kingdom firms are opening factories in the countries of the European Common Market, and it is not possible to say what effect such developments may have on United Kingdom exports.

Mr. Hynd: The President may not be aware of the actual number, but surely he is aware that a considerable number of firms are doing this? Is not it a serious thing from the point of view of British employment and exports?

Mr. Maudling: It is hard to judge, but I should say that in many ways when British firms invest in French, German or Italian firms, for example, it is a good thing for the economy and helps our balance of payments. But one of the troubles arising from the absence of agreement between the Six and the Seven is the duplication and waste of investment in Europe, which is one reason why we are so anxious to find solutions for this problem.

Mr. Wade: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British firms considering transferring their factories to the countries of the European Common Market, and foreign firms which are considering switching from the British Isles to Europe will not wait until the British


Government have made up their mind whether or not they wish to enter the European Common Market?

Mr. Maudling: I have not heard any proposals for any such transfer.

Israel

Mr. Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade what advice he has given to British firms who trade with Israel.

Mr. Maudling: The advice I have given to British firms who trade with Israel has depended on the questions they have asked.

Mr. Dugdale: Have any of them asked whether or not they should subject themselves to the form of blackmail which the Arab States are now placing on them by suggesting that if they trade with Israel they will lose Arab trade? If such a question is put to them, will the President support them in continuing their lawful trade with Israel?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think we should advise them on what decisions to take in their own commercial interest, but we certainly do not recognise the right of these Arab countries to use their dispute with Israel to take measures harmful to British firms, and we have protested to the Governments concerned accordingly.

Mr. H. Wilson: Has the President seen a report that some powerful interests in shipping are getting together to form a cartel undertaking not to trade with Israel in return for some concessions from Arab countries? Will the Government make clear their abhorrence of this kind of cartel of getting together to boycott a friendly country?

Mr. Maudling: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but if the right hon. Gentleman will send me details I will gladly look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Schools (Closures)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which schools for Africans have been closed for political reasons in Northern Rhodesia; and when they will be reopened.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): None, Sir. As I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 14th April, a number of schools have been closed because of indiscipline and insubordination. A commission of inquiry is at present examining the whole problem, and their recommendations are awaited.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that, with one exception, all the 366 students of the Hodgson Technical College at Lusaka have been expelled for expressing themselves as opposed to Federation? Will the Colonial Secretary convey to the Minister of Education in Northern Rhodesia that he disapproves strongly of this attempt to interfere with the freedom of expression of political opinions by students? Will the inquiry be held in public, and what guarantee is there that students appearing before it will not be subjected to further victimisation?

Mr. Macleod: I will study the matter again in the light of the supplementary question, but my information differs from that of the hon. Gentleman both regarding the Hodgson Technical College and other institutions. The inquiry is already taking place. There is a judge as chairman and two African members. I am not sure whether it is being held in public, but I will let the hon. Member know. I am sure that no question of further action being taken against the students for their evidence will arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Wages

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how soon he expects the Kenya Government to realise their immediate aim of raising the minimum adult wage to a level which will support a man and his wife.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Progress towards this standard must be related to Kenya's economic circumstances and the Kenya Government cannot therefore undertake to reach it by any fixed date. The next step forward, however, will be taken with effect from 1st July as a result of the


latest six-monthly review. The adult minimum wage and housing allowance will be raised in Nairobi by a total, of 8½ shillings to 128 shillings a month, and in other towns proportionately. The adult housing allowance will then reach the full target of twice the youth allowance, and the adult minimum wage will be 1·375 of the youth wage; the full target is 1·67.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the Colonial Secretary regard as a very serious situation, which is bound to lead to considerable unrest, the fact that the adult minimum wage is not a living wage for a married man and, according to the Nairobi Labour Commissioner, is 50 per cent. below the level required to maintain a family of two children? Cannot the Colonial Secretary move faster to give a definite date for the introduction of a living wage for a married African man in Nairobi?

Mr. Macleod: I doubt whether it is practicable to fix a date without any relation to Kenya's economic circumstances. There are many factors which play on this matter, not least some of the speeches which are being made and which have a considerable effect upon confidence in the economy of Kenya. Apart from that, I am sure that the hon. Member welcomes the step which is taking place on 1st July. When he studies my Answer, he will see that it goes a long way towards the first stage. I hope that as a result of the next review we shall be able to make further progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Emergency Powers

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far powers previously limited to a state of emergency, including detention without trial, are to be incorporated within the functions of the administration of Nyasaland; and when the remaining detainees arrested during the state of emergency are to be released.

Mr. Iain Macleod: There is no question of the Nyasaland Government assuming emergency powers in normal conditions. It has become possible to terminate the formal state of emergency and the special powers now in force are the minimum necessary to preserve

public security during the transitional period, and will be kept under continuous review. The remaining detainees will be released when the Governor is satisfied that they no longer present any threat to the maintenance of law and order.

Mr. Brockway: Yes, but have not many of the emergency powers been transferred to the normal Administration? Do not these include the control of public meetings, the control of places of residence, the control of movement and retention of detention without trial? Do not all these things outrage the Declaration of Human Rights which the United Nations has endorsed?

Mr. Macleod: Only two regulations have been made. Those relate to the control of meetings and in some cases to the control of movement. There are no powers to make new detention orders, and for such powers to be brought into force a declaration would have to be made similar to that which precedes a state of emergency. At the present time, that is clearly not in contemplation in Nyasaland.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZANZIBAR

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the proposed constitutional changes in Zanzibar.

Mr. Macleod: The Report of the Constitutional Commissioner, Zanzibar, Sir Hilary Blood, was published in Zanzibar on 16th June, and I have placed copies of the Report in the Library.
Neither His Highness' Government nor Her Majesty's Government have yet had time to study the Report in detail or to formulate their views on the Commissioner's recommendations and it is proposed, after a suitable interval, to allow the public in Zanzibar to study the Report, to convene a meeting of the Zanzibar Legislature to debate the recommendations.
I will await the recommendations of the British Resident in the light of the debate before making a further statement.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case many of us welcome the recommendations which are made in this Report? When the right hon. Gentleman considers those recommendations, will he ask whether Zanzibar is not now in a position in which it can enjoy full internal self-government?

Mr. Macleod: I agree that this is a helpful and imaginative Report, but, in view of the terms of my Answer, I do not think that it would be right to anticipate the decision which I shall have to take upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Pigs

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the total number of pigs on agricultural holdings in England and Wales for May; and how this figure compares with that for the previous month and with that for May, 1959;
(2) what was the total number of sows for breeding on agricultural holdings in England and Wales for May; and how this compares with that for the previous month and with that for May, 1959.

The Joint Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): The total number of pigs on agricultural holdings in England and Wales at the beginning of May is estimated at 4,150,000, compared with 4,570,000 in April and 4,820,000 in May, 1959. The corresponding estimates of sows for breeding were 544,000; 556,000 and 565,000 respectively.

Mr. Willey: In view of these very disappointing figures, and the Government's claims about an increasing pig population, will the Government look at the possibility of giving longer-term assurances to the pig industry than they gave in the Price Review?

Mr. Godber: No, I do not think it would be the right time to give any longer-term assurances than we have given. I think that the assurances which we gave in the Price Review have helped the establishment of long-term contracts. I hope that when the June

figures are available, they will help to reassure the hon. Member about the position.

Zoo Animals (Standing Orders)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what standing orders he has made for urban zoos in respect of the importation of animals; whether he will make a standing order in this respect for animals of all zoos; and what was the cost of preparing, printing, and issuing the order of 30th May authorising the landing of a number of animals, including two duikers and one dik-dik.

Mr. Godber: There are standing orders for London, Edinburgh and Chester zoos, and my right hon. Friend is considering how far on animal health grounds he would be justified in making more orders of this kind. Each separate landing order costs about £14.

Mr. Janner: While appreciating the fact that some orders have already been made, does not the Minister think that it is a waste of money, for a few dik-diks and duikers, to have to have a separate order costing £14 a time? It may be of interest for zoological purposes, but, from the point of view of expenditure, does he not think that he should have a general standing order and allow these animals in?

Mr. Godber: I thought that my right hon. Friend had already explained to the hon. Member that he has taken some action in this respect. I remind the House that duikers are very important animals. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is a duiker?"] It is a small African antelope which is well known for its habit of diving into the bush when attacked. I suggest that hon. Members opposite might derive some benefit from following its example.

Sir J. Duncan: May I ask my hon. Friend, in the interest of the health of the livestock of this country, to be very careful before he allows any liberalisation of the importation of duikers or anything else?

Mr. Godber: Yes.

Fishery Limits

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the difficulties of


navigation caused to officers of British fishing trawlers by the present uncertainty as to the fishing waters available to them in the North Sea and further north; and if he will now circulate to all concerned a detailed statement as to their rights and liabilities for their guidance.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is well aware that the British fishing industry have many difficulties at the present time, and he is in close touch with the industry about all these matters.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this is exemplified by the unfortunate incident in which Her Majesty's destroyer "Crossbow" was involved recently, as indicated in my Question yesterday to the Civil Lord, and his Answer? Will he take steps to avoid unfortunate and expensive maritime international incidents which do great harm to the British fishing industry?

Mr. Godber: I do not think I can usefully add to what the hon. Member was told yesterday about that incident. I assure him, however, that my right hon. Friend is very anxious to reach a lasting settlement which is satisfactory to British fishing interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Hares Act, 1892

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Dapartment whether his attention has been called to the recent prosecution of a man under the Hares Act of 1892, for selling an English hare between the months of March and July; what consideration he has given to the effect of the provisions of this Act, having regard to the development of deep freezing; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): My right hon. Friend has no proposals to make for amending this Act, but he is willing to consider, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, any representations that may be made to him about it.

Mr. Janner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Act is quite

out of date? Will he not, with some of his hon. and right hon. Friends, consider the necessity of repealing a number of Acts which have no sense at all on the Statute Book today?

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member has done a useful service in bringing this matter before the House, but there are other points of view. My right hon. Friend would consider representations from all interests.

Cruelty to Children

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that figures for the ill-treatment of children are the highest for many years; and what he proposes doing to improve this situation.

Mr. Vosper: I am glad to say that the number of persons found guilty of cruelty to children by the courts in England and Wales has been falling fairly steadily in recent years and in 1959 was the lowest since the end of the war.

Mr. Rankin: That Answer is not true. Is the right hon. Member not aware—my correspondence shows it—that since this Question was tabled many people in this country have been agitated by the fact that the figures in the last year's Report are the highest for many years and are not unique in the sense that they show a trend which has been manifest for the last three or four years? If the right hon. Gentleman contradicts that, I should like to see his evidence. In view of those figures, will not he consider giving to the National Society a percentage of the total contributions in any one year in order that more inspectors may be appointed to deal with this problem?

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member may be confused. The reference which I gave is to the number of convictions. These have fallen from a peak of 1,076 in 1951 to an all-time low record of 653 in 1959. That is to be welcomed. I appreciate the point the hon. Member made, which refers to the number of cases which have been reported. It may well be that the public have been more alert in reporting cases. I appreciate that there is concern about this and I intend to examine these figures further.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of public concern about some of the cases which come before the courts? Does he not agree that there is a tendency to leave all action in this matter to the N.S.P.C.C.? Will not he make an appeal to the public and also see that the police are much more vigilant and do not leave everything to the voluntary society?

Mr. Vosper: One point which we must welcome is that the public have reported more cases, which is revealed in the Report to which the hon. Member referred. The whole of this question is within the terms of the Ingleby Committee, whose Report we shall see fairly shortly. I think that this Question may have served some purpose, for public opinion can be of the greatest help in this matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House in what proportion of the cases prosecuted to conviction was the prosecuting authority the N.S.P.C.C. and in what proportion was it the public authority?

Mr. Vosper: I cannot answer that without notice, but I think that it was in the minority of cases that the N.S.P.C.C. laid the information as the prosecuting authority.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 27TH JUNE—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: Committee, which, at the request of the Opposition, it is proposed to take formally.

A debate will take place on an Opposition Motion on the Proposed Transfer of Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited to Private Ownership.

TUESDAY, 28TH JUNE—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on the Sale of S. G. Brown Limited to Private Interests, which will

arise on the Admiralty Office Vote, until seven o'clock.

At seven o'clock, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration.

Afterwards, consideration of the Motion relating to the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation Accounts.

WEDNESDAY, 29TH JUNE—Report and Third Reading of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Bill [Lords], and of the Public Health Laboratory Service Bill [Lords], which it is hoped to obtain by seven o'clock.

At seven o'clock, private Members' Motions will be considered.

THURSDAY, 30TH JUNE—Supply [18th Allotted Day]: Committee.

A debate on Apprenticeships will take place on the Ministry of Labour Vote, until seven o'clock.

Afterwards, a debate will take place on an Opposition Motion relating to the Supply of Two-Seater Cars to Disabled Persons.

FRIDAY, 1ST JULY—Government business will be taken which will be the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].

MONDAY, 4TH JULY—The proposed business will be Supply [19th Allotted Day]: Committee.

A debate on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for a debate in the near future on the economic situation, which has been highlighted by the decision to raise the Bank Rate to 6 per cent. and other measures?

Mr. Butler: There will be an opportunity on Supply days if the Opposition so wish. Perhaps the Opposition would like to give it consideration.

Mr. Peart: On Monday, the Minister of Power announced his White Paper and said:
I think it would be more convenient for the House if we discussed the White Paper at another time perhaps, as there will be an opportunity on another occasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 14.]


May I ask the Leader of the House, as he was there when that statement was made, when there will be opportunity? Is he aware that the Select Committee on the Atomic Energy Authority reported to this House nearly eight months ago and that we have never had a major debate on the nuclear energy programme or the Authority? Will the Government find time for a debate next week, or at some time?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that I can find time next week. This is a very crowded time of the year. But I think that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention are of the first importance.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a full debate on the relations with the Common Market and the European Free Trade Area?

Mr. Butler: I think that we have to watch for the most suitable time for organising such a debate.

Mr. Maddan: Will my right hon. Friend, further to that, bear in mind that these negotiations are always proceeding, that reorientation of our attitude is clearly going ahead and is necessary for a solution of the problem, and that a Parliamentary debate could very much help the successful achievement nationally of that reorientation?

Mr. Butler: Her Majesty's Government always like to work with the wisdom of the House to help, but the difficulty at this time of the year is to find the time.

Mrs. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give time for a debate on the very important Report of the Anderson Committee on Grants to University Students?

Mr. Butler: I shall make a note of the hon. Lady's request.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Since yesterday afternoon, at Question Time, there have been very important developments in Nicosia. As the House has been told nothing about them, as we understand from the business announced for next week that we may not be told anything about them, will the Leader of the House use his influence to see that we get a

very early statement on what is going on in Cyprus at present, and an opportunity for Parliament to comment on it, however briefly, during next week?

Mr. Butler: The Minister of State, in answering a Question on this matter, said that there were obvious difficulties in timing any statement, but it would, naturally, be the wish of the Government to inform the House when there is something concrete to say.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall the Motion on the Order Paper on unemployment in Scotland, signed by all Scottish Opposition Members?
[That this House, while welcoming the efforts being made to induce development of private industry in areas of high unemployment, believes that where those efforts prove insufficient it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to bring full employment to those areas by setting up and operating publicly owned enterprises.]
Is he aware that in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning there was a debate on unemployment in Scotland in which the Secretary of State made a speech, after the announcement of the increase in the Bank Rate, in which he failed to inform the Committee of that increase or of its implications for Scotland? As this decision is so disastrous for Scotland, will he find time for a debate on this subject on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Butler: I should like to have, first, an opportunity of reading the debate which took place in the Scottish Grand Committee—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman will enjoy it."]—and then I shall be able to have a better mind on this matter.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION (AD HOC COMMITTEE)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House.
In accordance with what I understand to be the general wish of the House pursuant to a suggestion made during the debate on accommodation on 31st March, I propose to appoint an ad hoc


Committee with the following terms of reference:
To consider the proposals to improve the accommodation for Members in the House of Commons set forth in the Minister of Works' statement [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1960, col. 1522] and, in particular, the proposal to convert the roof space over the Committee Rooms into office accommodation, and to make recommendations.
The following hon. Members have agreed to serve on the Committee:
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) as Chairman.
The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet), the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn).
I have also invited to serve the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). I do not think that I have yet given him an opportunity to reply.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking you, Mr. Speaker, very much for that announcement you will, of course, be aware that we on this side of the House are disappointed that the terms of reference of the Committee do not go as far as we had asked for in the debate on accommodation. May I take it from your statement, Mr. Speaker, that the terms of reference will cover all the proposals on accommodation contained in the Minister of Works' statement to which you have referred?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that follows, as the hon. Lady will understand when she has had time to look at the actual wording of the terms of reference.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class III, Vote 17 (Child Care, Scotland) (Revised Estimate).
Class IV, Vote 14 (Scottish Education Department) (Revised Estimate).
Class V, Vote 11 (Housing, Scotland).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND CON STITUTION OF MENTAL WELFARE BOARD.)

3.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "Board" and to insert "Commission".
This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave in Committee to try to find a different name. I hope that the choice of "Commission" rather than "Board" will satisfy hon. Members who were worried about what they felt was a name with a nineteenth-century tang about it.

Miss Margaret Herbison: We on this side are glad that the Amendment has been tabled. It meets a point which was very strongly made in Committee, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton). It takes away any of the stigma which is perhaps attached to the word "Board". We welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 16, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 17, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In page 2, line 1, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from beginning to "of" and to insert:
seven and not more than nine commissioners (including at least one woman)".
The effect of the Amendment is, first, to increase the minimum number of commissioners of the Mental Welfare Commission from five to seven and the maximum from seven to nine, and, secondly, to require that one commissioner at least shall be a woman. Both changes are made to meet undertakings which I gave in Committee.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We on this side congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary of State on this victory for common sense. There is the preservation of the hon. Gentleman's argument about flexibility here, and we have never disputed that. We are glad, however, that the hon. Gentleman has been willing to extend the minimum number from five to seven. We think that this meets the point, particularly when taken with some later Amendments. I hope, however, that the good strain of reasonableness which has persisted for so long will continue, particularly on one of the later Amendments which I hope that we shall be discussing soon.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 3, leave out "and".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, after the first "commissioners", to insert:
two of whom shall have full-time appointments".
The Joint Under-Secretary of State will recall that in Committee I sought to make three of the appointments full-time, including the chairman. In the subsequent discussion the Joint Under-Secretary rejected the idea of a full-time chairman, and opinion on this side was inclined to accept his advice, although I had reservations about it. However, the Joint Under-Secretary agreed that there ought to be two full-time medical commissioners. That undertaking is not incorporated in the Bil, nor is it in any Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State. I should like to know why the undertaking given by the hon. Gentleman in Committee is not fulfilled in any Amendment on the Notice Paper.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The major point raised by the Amendment is a matter to which I have given the most careful and anxious consideration, together with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State and my advisers.
In the course of my hon. Friend's remarks in Committee, he said that it was our intention to appoint two full-time commissioners. That remains the case, but it is true that we are not writing it into the Bill. I will try to explain the full reasons for that. I recognise that a

major point is involved, and I have given very anxious thought to it and taken very full advice. I still think that It would be a mistake for us to accept the Amendment as it is drafted or in any form into which it might be put to make it workable.
This is a difficult point. The clearest way is to go through the Amendment and the three distinct points which it raises, because if I do that I shall have a better chance of making my reasons absolutely clear. First, it is important that the Commission should have at its disposal, both in its own membership and among its officers, an adequate number of doctors with the necessary qualifications and experience to enable it to discharge its duties effectively. We all accept that. I intend to ensure that.
As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said in Committee, there will be three doctors on the Commission, all of whom must obviously have background and experience in psychiatry. In addition, under subsection (5) the Secretary of State of the day is charged with the responsibility of providing the Commission with such other medical staff as it requires. These doctors will be comparable to the present deputy commissioners of the Board of Control, who, over the years, have done very valuable work. It is obvious that the precise number to be appointed under subsection (5) will have to be the subject of discussion with the Commission from time to time. What I have in mind at present is that the Commission should start with at least three under subsection (5).
The second point that emerges is the independence of the doctors on the Commission. This is a point on which I know that hon. Members opposite feel very strongly. It was raised by the hon. Member for. Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in Committee. After all our examination, I feel that it is a point about which there need be no difference of opinion. I have it definitely in mind that the medical members of the Commission should in the Government service hold appointments for the Commission only and serve the Commission only. They will not be, as the present commissioners of the Board of Control are, both commissioners and medical officers of the Secretary of State's Department. The Dunlop Committee recommends that this arrangement


should be discontinued, and I propose to follow its recommendation. Therefore, there should be no question of the medical commissioners being in any way susceptible to outside control from the Secretary of State because of the nature of their appointment.
We have come to this decision after a good deal of heart searching, because the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and other hon. Members opposite will remember that in the 1945–50 Parliament there was general agreement that the dual arrangement was a good one. We have thought about that, and have come to the conclusion that the Dunlop Committee's recommendations should be followed; and I know how strongly hon. Members opposite feel about the recommendations of that Committee.
The third point is whether, to give this independence, it is necessary also to provide in the Statute that they should serve the Commission and no one else for the whole of their time. That is the real difficulty in this Amendment. The Opposition have already accepted, in Standing Committee, that it would be a good thing for one medical member to be a psychiatrist, serving the Commission on a part-time basis and serving the rest of his time in the hospital service. It is clearly desirable, I agree, that the Commission should have a doctor who is facing the day-to-day problems of the practice of psychiatry and can give it the benefit of his advice from this angle.
As for the other two commissioners—and it is to those that this Amendment really refers—it is my intention that the initial appointment should be on a whole-time basis. There is unlikely to be any difficulty in obtaining doctors with the necessary qualifications and experience to serve on this basis, but it could happen—and this is really the reason for my resisting the Amendment—at some future date that a doctor whom the Secretary of State of the day, as the adviser on these Crown appointments, the Commission itself and the psychiatrists generally regarded as the best person to be appointed, was someone who, while willing to serve on the Commission, was not anxious to sever his connection altogether with his other work.
This need not necessarily be a question of terms of service or remuneration. The best man for the job at a given period might well wish to pursue his clinical work or research on a limited basis. He might, for example, be a university teacher who was reluctant to forgo altogether his connection with teaching and with academic work. Obviously, he could not be a medical commissioner and give the major part of his time to these other duties.
It seems undesirable to have something in the Statute that would forbid altogether an arrangement by which he gave, say, four-fifths of his time to the Commission and used the rest of his time in clinical work, research, or teaching. It would be most unfortunate to be unable to get the right people who could give the Commission the experience and the standing it needs on the medical side.
It is not merely a question of the amount of time, because it would always be possible to substitute two part-time medical commissioners for a whole-time commissioner, and by that means obtain more than the equivalent of a whole-time medical member. As has been pointed out in earlier Amendments, the flexibility in the membership of the Commission makes that possible. As I have said, this situation will not arise in the immediate future, but it may well arise at some point, and I suggest that we should not write into the Statute something that could deprive the Commission at a particular juncture of the services of the people who, at that time, might be best qualified to serve on it.
I hope that the House will accept my reasons for rejecting the Amendment. As I say, I have taken very extensive advice on this matter, and I can say that the medical opinion that I have been able to contact entirely agrees with my line of thought. I must, therefore, ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sure that most of my hon. Friends will be as astonished as I am at that reply. During our proceedings in the Standing Committee the Joint Under-Secretary, or the Secretary of State—I am not sure which—charged my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (MT. Forman) with riding two horses at one and the same


time, but that is exactly what has happened here.
First, I am rather pleased that the general principle behind our Amendment has been conceded, namely, that the independence of these men is to be sought to be secured, if not by statutory means at least administratively. That is really the nub of the argument, but this qualification that the right hon. Gentleman has brought in—while he put forward a fairly good case to justify it—seems to us to rob the principle of its validity. It completely undermines it. If we do not have the words written in, it is quite possible for the independence of these commissioners to be affected in practice.
The Government may subscribe to what the Secretary of State has said, but it does not follow that any other Secretary of State or any other Government would necessarily follow the practice he has initiated, and there is no statutory means by which we can ensure the independence of the commissioners unless we write into the Bill that they are to be full time. We stick to this argument, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) is with me here. Unless we write it in, we have no guarantee that the independence of these full-time commissioners will be preserved.
This is not a minor point. The Secretary of State himself, on Second Reading, in a very long speech—and, very rightly a long speech—explaining the Bill, talked, first, not about the nine parts or about all the Schedules to the Bill, but about the three main threads running through it. He took as one of the three main threads the independence of the Mental Welfare Commission—what, in fact, the Dunlop Committee recommended—and spent the earlier part of his speech saying that he was pleased to support the idea of the liberty of the subject being preserved. He said:
Wherever there has been legitimate doubt, we have tried to come down on the side of the patient's liberty by including the most ample safeguards we could devise. It is for this reason, as I shall explain later, that we have retained the Sheriff's part in the procedure for compulsory detention and we have retained an independent central body, the Mental Welfare Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 254.]
The right hon. Gentleman said later, in a reference that was supported by the

Joint Under-Secretary of State in Standing Committee, that the dichotomy of function of the General Board of Control would not be repeated in the Mental Welfare Commission.
Now, once again, the right hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with that, but says that we must not write it into the Statute. I have listened to the substance of his argument as closely as I could, but I cannot quite follow his objection here. There seems to be a basic assumption on the Government side that I do not understand, and perhaps the Minister will explain it further. The assumption is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that perhaps the man can spend four-fifths of his time only on this work.
In case I become obscure, I am now talking about the two commissioners. I am not talking about the third one—the part-time senior consultant. We are not talking about him—we are taking him out of it, altogether. He is entitled to carry on with his private practice, or consultant practice, or whatever he likes—that is his business.
4.0 p.m.
We are talking about the two commissioners. The assumption on the Government side seems to be that those two commissioners will not be working at full pressure. I cannot understand that. I know that someone may say that in thirty years' time we shall have taken such strides in mental treatment that we shall not have half the number of patients in mental hospitals that we have today. Nobody can really prophesy in terms sufficient to convince us that that will be so, but it is an argument for saying that we should amend the Bill in thirty years' time, or whenever it may be. Nevertheless, we cannot prophesy that, or anticipate anything like it.
We can go only on the facts of today, and the facts are these. We have 20,000 patients presently in mental institutions—a large number of them compulsorily detained. We have about 6,000 mental defectives, and they are in the queue—not accommodated as yet. We shall have a tremendous administrative inflow and outflow. There will be art enormous volume of work in the next five years, and I cannot see how the two commissioners wild not be fully occupied.
What about the future? Can the Secretary of State convince himself that these two men will not require to work full time, and that one can give four-fifths of his time to this work and one-fifth of his time to other matters? I cannot see the case here. There is, of course, the argument, "Let us have a man who does not spend all his time at this work, because we want him to keep abreast of developments." That is another argument, but, unless I misunderstood him. the Secretary of State has not used it.
If that is the case, I say that those are arguments for having three full-time commissioners on the basis he suggested and not two, because there is no substance in the point made by the Government that, in fact, the volume of work will decrease appreciably in the next decade—and I do not see how we can legislate beyond ten years in a matter that has so many imponderables. I therefore do not think that the case has been made out.
We feel very strongly about this, because if we surrender, if we do not write in the words "full time" we open the door to the vitiation of the independence of the Mental Welfare Commission. We can foresee it being frustrated by administrative decision, no doubt always with the best of intentions but actually robbing the Commission of its true validity.
If the Bill means anything at all, it means that the Commission is to be entirely and completely independent of political influence. It has to be independent. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I doubt whether we can retreat on this Amendment. I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to argue the case, and that later, perhaps, the Minister will be good enough to answer some of these points

Mr. James Dempsey: I was very surprised to hear the argument adduced by the Secretary of State in connection with the appointment of full-time commissioners. Whether we like it or not, we are introducing a new approach to the great problem of mental health, and that calls for a great deal of effort from all concerned. The nature of the task is very evident. We shall have the Commission, the hospital services and the local autho

rities—a great triangle of public services concentrated to tackle this very great problem of mental health in Scotland.
Bearing in mind the thousands of mental defectives in hospital, the countless thousands of out-patients travelling to hospitals, and the countless thousands in need of treatment at an early stage, I think that there is an unanswerable case for at least some full-time members of the Board. It is difficult to understand how the right hon. Gentleman expects the Commission to tackle this extremely difficult task with a wholly part-time membership. He has only to look at other similar typos of body in different parts of the country to realise that they could not survive without representative full-time sections in their administrations.
In the present case, the enormous task does not merely requests, but demands some full-time officers on the Commission. We felt that there should be three of them, but we are quite willing to accept two, provided that provision for those two is written into this Bill. If the Secretary of State is convinced that this is very necessary, extremely desirable and a step in the right direction, but can only offer platitudes, he should be thoroughly honest and put it in writing, so that we can all appreciate the implications of this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman's logic seems to be based on the fact that if one tries to attract a professional person of this calibre he is unlikely to give up his connection with medicine to become an administrator. That, in essence, is the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If that is his logic, will he tell me how he has managed to staff his existing Department of Health in Scotland, many of whose officers have had to give up their direct connection with medicine to administer Scottish health in general? The same can be said for many other services.
There are more than 200 local authorities in Scotland, all of them with medical officers who have medical assistants. It seems perfectly reasonable to argue that if more than 200 local authorities can attract hundreds of medical men to administer local authority functions the Secretary of State should be able to attract only two full-time commissioners for the Commission. I cannot see that


there will be any difficulty about attracting the right type of person. If the right hon. Gentleman makes the post sufficiently attractive, he will have no trouble about finding the two full-time commissioners for this very important task.
It is unfair to ask the House to accept promises. The Secretary of State should realise that we are legislating not merely for this or next year, but for many years, and future Secretaries of State are unlikely to be committed to the assurances which he has given the House this afternoon.
According to Scottish Press reports during the last few weeks, we might be losing the right hon. Gentleman in the near future.

Mr. William Ross: Do not raise our hopes.

Mr. Dempsey: They are tipping him as a suitable gentleman for another place.

Mr. Ross: Where are they tipping him?

Mr. E. G. Willis: Which other place?

Mr. Dempsey: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that we are making a proposition which is practicable provided that he has the will to achieve it. I hope chat he will realise that if these appointments are as important as he set out to convince the House they are, then the least he can do is to put that in writing and make it part of the Bill.

Mr. Willis: I am rather concerned about the right hon. Gentleman's rejection of the principle embodied in our proposals. I accept what has been said about the necessity for the Commission to be independent. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had consulted medical opinion and found it all in favour of his view, but that was not the case this afternoon and it was obvious that he had not consulted the medical opinion which matters.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government intend to make two full-time appointments, but that, later, it might be necessary to have appointments which were not full-time. He said that the most suitable person for the appointment might have some other employment which he might not want to give up. He said that such an appointment might

be quite small, such as lecturing at a university. However, it might take up a considerable part of that person's time. Who is to decide which is the case?
Anyone who knows what goes on when these appointments are made knows that if someone has sufficient backing, he can bring pressure of all kinds, subtle and otherwise, to obtain an appointment. I can visualise a situation in which one of these appointments would go to someone who was spending almost half his time doing another job. Where the Secretary of State draws the line is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State in office at the time. The right hon. Gentleman virtually said that he proposed to leave it to the Secretary of State of the day, but the Secretary of State of the day might have ideas quite different from those put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
Is there sufficient work to justify two full-time medical commissioners? Throughout the whole of the Bill we impose all sorts of duties on the medical commissioners and one has only to consider the number of people who are mentally ill and the duties imposed on the commissioners in respect of each to appreciate the enormous amount of work involved. In view of that and the necessity for the commissioners to be independent, it is essential that these matters should be written into the Bill. What the Secretary of State says is intended does not mean a thing unless the Bill provides for it. The Secretary of State cannot make promises which are binding on anyone else and, in effect, he is not implementing the intentions of the Dunlop Committee if he does not write these provisions into the Bill.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude. There do not appear to be very good reasons why we should not have two full-time members. Are we to be so short of medical men that it will be difficult to get someone to do the work, not just someone who will give only half his time to it and the rest of his time to something else? I am not so familiar with the medical profession as to be able to answer that, but I think it unlikely. If the conditions are made sufficiently attractive, there should be no difficulty about getting the right men, and it should be provided in the Bill that their appointments should be full-time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: By leave of the House, may I say that there are two distinct points at issue here. One is the independence of the Commission and the other is the volume of work. I tried to make it clear that if there was any problem about the volume of work in the distant future, it would be possible to substitute two part-time commissioners for a whole-time commissioner and by that means obtain more than the equivalent of a whole-time medical member. That is quite possible as the Bill stands. We should not be too worried about the volume of work, because it is intended that at present the two medical commissioners should be full time. lf, later, it seems desirable that one or more should not be full time, there is no reason to be concerned about dealing with the volume of work, because sufficient part-time members could be appointed more than to make up for the full-time appointments.
I feel that I cannot give way on that issue for the reason I have already stated, which is that future Secretaries of State must be left with a degree of flexibility. We cannot tell today what stage of advance may be reached at any given moment in the future in the treatment of mental illness. It might be very valuable to have a medical commissioner who was also doing much valuable clinical work, or lecturing in a university, or other work, who was also able to make an important contribution to the work of the Commission.
I remind the House that there is a provision to provide assistants to the commissioners to help with the work, a sequel to the present deputy commissioners, so that we have provided for covering an increased volume of work while, at the same time, avoiding tying my successors to a situation which, in future, might not be in the best interests of what we are trying to achieve.
I appreciate the difficulties about the independence of the Commission. It is always one of my problems in a matter like this to try to get flexibility without binding my successors, and yet achieve desirable results at a given moment. I am prepared carefully to examine that matter before the Bill receives a Royal Assent to see whether we can find any form of words to make it clear that someone could not double a job between being

a member of my Department and being a member of the Commission. I have looked into that, but I have not yet found a form of words.
Political influence in these things has been mentioned and I know that that is a genuine worry with this question of independence. I have not found an answer and it may not be possible to do so, so that I cannot give an absolute promise. If we can find a way of making it clear that a part-time medical commissioner should not double that job with a job in the Scottish Office, or another Government Department, we will do so, but the drafting of such a provision is not easy. However, I promise to study it and to see whether there is a way. Having said that, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment as it stands.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry that the Secretary of State has taken that line. He was not in the Committee when this subject was discussed. I then had more than a feeling that the point which we made at that time had been accepted and that we were to get two full-time commissioners of the three medical commissioners. I thought that there was no argument about it and I was surprised when I did not see a Government Amendment to put that into the Bill.
The Secretary of State need not be surprised that we tend to discard anything he says today about that, because we have recollections of what was said in Committee. No one has made more speeches—not always the wisest speeches in recollection—on the subject of what future Secretaries of State might do than the present Secretary of State. I will not make him blush again by quoting them.

Mr. Maclay: Very good speeches.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman may think that they were very good speeches, but he does not like them to be quoted, and he certainly did not enjoy the first time I quoted such a speech.
If these words are written into the Bill, we shall not tie future Secretaries of State. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he cannot tie a successor, It is the simplest thing to amend an Act of Parliament, provided we have efficient Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State. They would


have no trouble either in the House or in Committee.
We are here dealing with what is recognised as the most important safeguard for the treatment of the mentally ill who are in hospital or boarded out. The success of this legislation depends on the success of the Mental Welfare Commission. Now the Secretary of State tells us that it is proposed to appoint two full-time members. That means that he has been able to get the right people to serve full time. His whole argument is that some time in the future, near or distant, when he has gone to another place and when we are landed with a Secretary of State who has not the persuasive powers of the right hon. Gentleman, it may not be possible to get the right people to take on a full-time job.
Does the right hon. Gentleman's argument really bear examination? What is the good of getting the right people if they are not prepared to devote a proper and adequate amount of time to the job? That is the right hon. Gentleman's argument. We have no guarantee, apart from his word, that, even on the inception of the Mental Welfare Commission, we will get two full-time members appointed. We will be tied by the Statute, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to tell us a future Secretary of State will be tied. He will be tied by the Statute more than anyone else. If we accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument, he can come along in two or three months and say that he could not get right men full time.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The person appointed full time could take another job and would then become part time.

Mr. Ross: That was a point to which I was coming. The Secretary of State could not do very much in the matter unless it is written into the terms of appointment that it will be full time. But we have no guarantee that he will do that. More and more specialist appointments within the Health Service are becoming part-time with private practice. It has become an absolute racket. It is something about which patients and many people within the Health Service itself are very much concerned.
I do not think that we can accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Either

we recognise the importance of the Mental Welfare Commission and insist upon having in the Statute provision ensuring that the Secretary of State will immediately appoint two full-time commissioners and that in future there will be two full-time commissioners, or we underwrite the importance of what we have hitherto proclaimed to be one of the great advances in the treatment and welfare of the mentally ill in Scotland. The whole attitude of the Government on mental health is being tested by this Amendment. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State, having listened to the argument, will change his mind and tell us what the Joint Under-Secretary of State told us in Committee, namely, that it is their intention to accept the Amendment and to have two full-time commissioners.

Miss Herbison: I waited a moment in the hope that the Secretary of State would rise and say that he was ready to accept the Amendment. When the Government Amendments were tabled to meet many of the points that we raised in Committee, I, like my hon. Friends, was very surprised that this Amendment did not appear under the name of the Secretary of State.
We examined this matter very carefully in Committee. We had an argument on whether five members should be the minimum and seven the maximum. After our arguments, the Government accepted seven as the minimum and nine as the maximum. In Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary of State said:
Then we are agreed upon the three medical commissioners, one part-time and the other two full-time.
That is very specific.
Later, in the same column—he was dealing with a number of Amendments—he said:
If the chairman is to be the kind of man we are looking for he will almost certainly have to be a part-time chairman, as the existing one is.
We accepted the Government's argument, but the Joint Under-Secretary of State went on:
Therefore, the only people who will be full-time will be the two medical commissioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee: 25th February, 1960; c 37.]
I hope that, on reflection, hon. Members opposite feel that it is better to have two


full-time members with a chairman as a part-time member. Hon. Members opposite were reasonable, and, when it was suggested that if we wanted a chairman of the calibre we would like him to be he should not be part-time, we accepted that and took it in good faith that the Government had accepted without any hesitation that the two medical commissioners should be full-time.
The Secretary of State has put forward a number of arguments, and I am worried about the case that he has made out. We had a Royal Commission and then the Dunlop Committee. This Committee said, in effect, that the General Board of Control, and particularly the medical members of it, acted as referee for the patient and centre-forward for the Secretary of State. The Committee did not like that, and neither do we. The fact that we have abolished the General Board of Control and put in its place the Mental Welfare Commission seems to us a very great improvement. That does not cast any reflection on the Board. We want to ensure that there will be two full-time commissioners on the Mental Welfare Commission and that they shall not be attached to the Department of Health—in other words, that they will not have the dual job that those on the Board had.
We have no guarantee except the words of the Secretary of State. Having accepted the words of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in Committee, and being greatly disappointed on Report, I am sorry to have to say that we cannot accept the promise of the Secretary of State. I do not mean that the Secretary of State, as long as he is Secretary of State, will not honour what he has said. I do not cast any doubts on his integrity in this matter. But Secretaries of State change. It may be that very soon under this Tory Government we shall have another one. That is the first reason why we insist on the Amendment.
I now come to one or two points made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that initially the appointments would be full-time. I take it that the Secretary of State believes that for this work he will be able to obtain two men with the necessary qualifications who are willing to give up all their other work in order

to carry out this work. It means that it is felt that they will have work of sufficient interest which will give them a chance to carry out the research on which they are so keen. They have an admirable chance of doing that in this sort of job.
The only reason why I feel that in future, perhaps the not too distant future, we will not need two full-time commissioners is that the work will become very much less. I cannot envisage that for a very long time, and if it is to be a very long time there is no harm in bringing in an amending Bill to deal with the matter. Then, the Secretary of State of that day would be able to give us advice, backed by evidence, which the present Secretary of State is unable to give us today.
4.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us another reason which worries me. He told us that instead of one full-time, we may get two part-time members of the Commission, and, in his own words, he said that two part-time members might do more work than one full-time. But what about the size of this Commission? The maximum is nine and the minimum seven. We have to look at the minimum, which is seven. At present, we have three medical commissioners, and we may also have one who is an advocate, which gives us four, another a woman, which makes five. Supposing we were to have four medical commissioners part time, apart from the very high consultants, that would give us four full time and two part time, making six, and one other to make it seven, which means that not another lay person interested in mental health and welfare will have a place on that Commission.
That seems to me to be a very serious objection to the case put forward by the Secretary of State. We on this side of the House feel very strongly on this matter. All through the discussions on the Bill we have tried to ensure that what both the Royal Commission and we ourselves hoped the Bill would do was to bring a completely new attitude towards the treatment of mental illness in order to give far greater safeguards to the mentally ill than we have so far had. Surely the Secretary of State wants that, too, and I ask him, even at


this stage, to accept this Amendment. If he does not, we will have to carry it to a vote.

Mr. Maclay: With the permission of the House, may I deal finally with one or two points which have just been made? I have already said that I will try to find a form of words to avoid the duality of responsibility. I realise that the hon. Lady's argument is very strong, but I am only going part of the way with her in order to see that there is no possibility of dual responsibility to the Commission and to St. Andrew's House, which is the easiest way of putting what she has in mind. I have said that it is difficult, and that I have looked at it already and have not got the right words, but if I can find them, I will do so.
I very much regret it if there was any misleading of the Committee. There is no disagreement between my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and myself. This matter was very fully drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend, and it is correct to say that it was not the intention, through the words used at that time, to suggest that we would write it fully into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, I know, regrets that there was any misunderstanding about that. A variety of issues was at stake when the matter was discussed, and I think it is possible that there could have been a genuine misunderstanding arising out of the words used at that time. Apart from that, the decision was taken in a desire to do the best we can, and I think we are all determined to achieve in this Bill what we all desire. I am afraid that I must stick to my original purpose.

Mr. A. Woodburn: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement in regard to the immediate situation that there should be two full-time Commissioners. I recognise that he will have to bring in another Bill to remedy this difficulty. If he thinks that some situation like this might arise in future, is there any reason why he should not take power to bring in a Statutory Instrument altering the Commission if such an arrangement becomes necessary? That would get rid of the problem which he seems to think is something that will arise in future, and will enable us to get on with the Bill by putting in what he proposes to do now.

Mr. Maclay: May I say that if I accepted that suggestion, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will accuse me in future of being "Huey Long-ish" and taking too much power for myself. It is very difficult to accept that.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: May I put a point of substance to the Secretary of State? He said that he would try to find some form of words, and I presume that he means that it will be done when the Bill goes to another place. I do not know that that will satisfy many of my hon. Friends, and it certainly would not satisfy myself and those who believe in the principle of the matter.
Is it not important, to preserve the independence of the members of the Commission, that their remuneration should be entirely in respect of the Commission, and that if they are to do other work, such as visiting lecturers at universities or in research, it should not involve any public money? The Secretary of State used the phrase "direct Government employment" and he even mentioned St. Andrew's House. It may not be directly concerned with St. Andrew's House, but it is not the fact that it is concerned with St. Andrew's House that is the difficulty, but its influence on other public authorities and other public appointments other than those to the Mental Welfare Commission.
If the Secretary of State thinks, "I have disappointed the Opposition, and the Joint Under-Secretary, though with the best intentions, has given an impression which has misled them, and I feel that I must do something to make amends", I hope that he will take up this point about the full-time members in the sense that their remuneration is very important to the question whether or not they are genuinely independent of political influence. "Huey Long" is very important in this connection, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, although he may not be the "Huey Long", nevertheless "Huey Long" may emerge one day.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 151.

Division No. 118.]
AYES
[4.37 p.m.


Baiter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Healey, Denis
Pavitt, Laurence


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Howell, Charles A.
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hoy, James H.
Redhead, E. C.


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, George
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Small, William


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Snow, Julian


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jeger, George
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Stonehouse, John


Dodds, Norman
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Driberg, Tom
King, Dr. Horace
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Thornson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Albert
Lipton, Marcus
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Warbey, William


Foot, Dingle
McCann, John
Wells, Percy, Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
MacColl, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInnes, James
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Whitlock, William


Gaipern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John
Willey, Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marsh, Richard
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, R. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Hannan, William
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen. Will
Mr. Lawson and




Mr. G. H. R. Rogers




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley R.


Aitken, W. T.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Allason, James
Grimond, J.
Maddan, Martin


Arbuthnot, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maginnis, John E.


Atkins, Humphrey
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, Anthony


Barlow, Sir John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Batsford, Brian
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, Ray


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks)
Hendry, Forbes
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Nugent, Sir Richard


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Page, Graham


Box, Donald
Holland, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holt, Arthur
Partridge, E.


Braine, Bernard
Hopkins, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Brewis, John
Hornby, R. P.
Peel, John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Percival, Ian


Bryan, Paul
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Collard, Richard
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roots, William


Cooper, A. E.
Jennings, J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cordle, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Shaw, M.


Costain, A. P
Lagden, Godfrey
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Cunningham, Knox
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stodart, J. A.


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Teeling, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Litchfield Capt. John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut nC'dfield)
Thorneycroft. Rt. Hon. Peter


Finlay, Graeme




Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longbottom, Charles
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Freeth, Denzil
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Loveys, Walter H.
Turner, Colin


Gammons, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gardner, Edward
McAdden, Stephen
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Vane, W. M. F.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Wade, Donald 




Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Whitelaw, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Wall, Patrick
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Woollam, John


Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus


Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Wise, A. R.



Webster, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodhouse, CM.
Mr. Brooman-White and Mr. Noble.

Amendments made: In page 2, line 4, after "and", insert:
one shall be a person who has been for a period of at least five years either a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.
(3)".

In line 6, at end insert "of the Mental Welfare Commission".

In line 20, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 24, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 25, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 26, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 27, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 29, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 30, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Maclay.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(DISSOLUTION OF GENERAL BOARD OF CONTROL FOR SCOTLAND.)

Amendments made: In page 2, line 32, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 44, leave "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 45, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Maclay.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE MENTAL WELFARE BOARD.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 1, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Maclay.]

4.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out "generally".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following one, in line 2, after "exercise", to insert "general".

Miss Herbison: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This was an Amendment which I expected to be tabled by the Govern

ment. It is a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in Committee, when the Government did not find it possible to accept our Amendment, although, when we suggested that "general" should be inserted, there seemed to be general agreement from the Government side. I wonder whether they are now ready to accept our suggestion.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): I do not think that there is any dispute between the two sides of the House on what we are trying to achieve. The only dispute concerns how to do it. Both sides are agreed, first, that the protective functions of the Commission should cover as wide a field as possible and, secondly, that within that field the Commission should have power to deal not only with general matters, but also with particular cases and with the particular details of them.
A slightly parallel example may be found in those cases where a Minister has power to give a general direction but it is found, sometimes to our intense dislike, that he cannot give a specific direction. We want the Commission to have power to deal with the specific cases as well as with the general. The question is how we are to do it.
To refer to the hon. Lady's second Amendment, I believe that the object can be achieved by our own following Amendment, in line 9, to leave out "general" and I will briefly explain why. If we used the phrase "general protective functions" in line 2, it could be read as limiting the protective functions merely to general matters as against particular and specific cases. With that in mind, we prefer not to insert "general" and, equally, to take out the word "general" where it appears in line 9. That will leave the Commission with a wide field and without any generality attached to its functions which might be thought to take away from its specific powers.
It is for that reason that I would resist the two Amendments and not because I am not in agreement with what the hon. Lady has in mind. It is because


I feel that the proper way to do this is to delete the word "general" and not to insert it in line 2. The hon. Lady may say that we are leaving the word "generally" at the beginning of line 2, but that is to emphasise that the functions cover a wide sphere of activity. To achieve the object which we all have in mind we should reject these two Amendments and, instead, accept the Government Amendment to page 3. line 9.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 3, line 9, leave out "general".

In line 10, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Maclay.]

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page 3. line 17, to leave out "at such intervals" and to insert:
regularly and as often".
Perhaps it would be convenient also to discuss the Opposition amendments in page 3, line 17, at the end to insert:
but not less than twice in each year
and vote on the Amendments separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that will be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Maclay: The effect of the Amendment is to require the Mental Welfare Commission to visit patients who are liable to be detained in hospital or subject to guardianship at regular intervals in addition to visiting them as often as the Commission thinks appropriate to make specific inquiries or for some other specific purpose. In Committee, an Amendment was moved to make the Commission visit the patients not less than twice a year when they were subject to guardianship. It was suggested that there was no requirement to visit regularly and that the Commission would visit only when it received complaints. We undertook to consider the possibility of arranging for these visits and the Amendment is an attempt to meet that undertaking, but I understand from the Opposition Amendment on the Notice Paper that our Amendment does not satisfy hon. Members opposite.
Our Amendment does not specify the visits which should take place. We do not think it right to lay down a specific requirement that all patients must be

visited twice yearly. Once the Commission has had the duty of regular visitations placed upon it, so that the need to keep in touch with all patients is beyond doubt, we feel that the Commission should be free to fix how frequent the visits should be. The Commission might decide in the light of experience that one class of patients requires more frequent visits than another and a body of this kind should be free to use its resources accordingly.
Boarded-out patients may be living with relatives and everything may be going well, and there may be much more need for more frequent visitation if they are not living with relatives. It seems wrong to make an absolute requirement of so many visits a year, regardless of the condition of the patient. I hope that the Amendment, as an attempt to meet the major part of the point made by the Opposition, will be acceptable. We feel that the Commission is a responsible body and should be free to use its time as it thinks best without being tied too arbitrarily to a timetable which might compel it to make formal visits when these were not necessary and there were other matters to which the Commission might more rightly devote its time.
I hope that the Opposition will not feel that there should be a more rigid adherence to a timetable.

Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meet the points which we made in Committee. Perhaps I would have been more willing to accept the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has tabled and to forgo the further Amendments which we have put dawn had we been more successful in persuading him to accept the last Opposition Amendment that we have just discussed. The Secretary of State has told us that those who are members of the Commission will be responsible people, but if sometimes the Commission takes on three part-time doctors and not one full-time, those doctors might find that they did so much outside work apart from the Commission's work that what they would consider to be regular visitations would not be considered by other people to be regular enough.
At this stage, it is of the greatest importance that there should be at least a visitation twice a year. We on this side


of the House feel strongly that the Secretary of State has not given us reasons to convince us that we can leave the matter completely to the Commission, particularly since he has not given us the assurance that full-time doctors will be employed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to this matter while the debate continues.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There is a very reasonable point here. The Secretary of State said in a debate on a previous Amendment that he could not commit any of his successors in office. He has now made a statement on this Amendment to which, again, he cannot commit his successors, and it could be read to mean that visitations can be as few as possible. The right hon. Gentleman, earlier in the debate, managed to have one of the full-time men working only four-fifths of the time for the Commission and working the remaining fifth making money.
These full-time commissioners seem to be meeting the finest clinical material, in the medical sense, in the course of their work and I cannot see why they should want to take on any outside task. It is true that that is another point, but it only reinforces the argument about the frequency with which visitations are carried out. I do not think that the impression should be created that the Commission will not work at the pressure that we think is desirable.
Many of these cases, and particularly the mental deficients and the more advanced psychotics, tend to be hopeless in appearance when met de novo even by an experienced practitioner, and there is frequently a long case history which tells against the patient. There is nothing more distressing than encountering a huge case history and feeling that one has to go through the whole thing to get the patient's antecedents.
5.0 p.m.
It is very difficult not to tend to say to oneself, if one is a busy man, "This is rather a sad case, and that is that". We do not want that to happen, and I am sure that the Government do not want it. We want the Commission not only to do its routine work, but also to act with drive and energy to try to find out apparently irrecoverable oases. There is also the argument about public expense in keeping persons in hospital

who should have been discharged. During the Second Reading debate, the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) made the assertion—and it was a very proper one—that many people have been kept much longer in hospital than they should have been.
To a large extent, this ennui of neglect passes over almost everybody, even those well disposed to the patient concerned. They tend to think, "This is a hopeless case." The men to whom we turn to start the first inquiry into these patients are the commissioners. Admittedly, they may have medical staff, but we turn to them because they are supposed to be men of high calibre who are taking on the most difficult patients. Why cannot we have a definite period set down?
The Secretary of State has argued that "regularly" could mean three or four or more times a year. But it could also mean the reverse. It could mean once in two years. The detained person can receive better service from the Mental Welfare Commission by the Secretary of State's Amendment than if he is a voluntary patient. Yet the Bill is designed to be biased in favour of voluntary patients entering hospital for treatment and against there being an extension of detention. Under the Bill's provisions a patient who is in detention receives a visit, an inspection—in fact, "the works"—including the judicial process, if necessary, once a year. Yet a voluntary patient, under the Secretary of State's Amendment, could be neglected, or seen once every two or three years. In fact, there is no limit.
There is, however, substance in our Amendment. We are specifically suggesting a minimum of at least twice a year for visits. The Secretary of State's Amendment says that these should be "regularly, and as often" as possible. How much more effective his words could be. The right hon. Gentleman leads us to believe that the Commissioners, who will have much work to do, will visit these patients as often as possible. It is a balance of argument. It is not unreasonable to argue that he has taken a step towards us, and we appreciate that. We are not ungrateful that our arguments have received a response. But now we want to carry him a step further.
The right hon. Gentleman may not wish to accept our suggestion that the visits should be at least twice a year. Perhaps he would prefer once a year. He should, however, definitely state a minimum. We believe that the voluntary patient deserves to be visited at least twice a year. He is neglecting the voluntary patients, who are the majority of those in mental hospitals. He is missing an opportunity of making the Commission not only a guiding protective body in the background, but a body actually taking an active part in the rehabilitation of patients.
Is it to be a passive Commission, to be called in in times of emergency? Or is it to be an active Commission, taking a helpful part in bringing patients back to sanity and a proper mental status? That, I believe, is the choice. I do not wish to build too much on our Amendment, but I think that there is an appreciable difference between the two sides. I invite the Secretary of State to think again, in the hope that he may meet us on this point.

Mr. Willis: I can see that the Secretary of State, while he might not yet have taken the step to meet us on this, has his foot lifted in readiness to do so. I have risen to enable him to give a little more consideration to the very cogent arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), because I feel that if he does give such consideration he will accept our Amendment. We are proposing something quite reasonable. If our Amendment were accepted this subsection would read:
…it shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission… to visit at such intervals as they may think appropriate, but not less than twice in each year, patients who are liable to be detained in a hospital…
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock pointed out, as the subsection stands at present, and as amended by the Secretary of State, there is no guarantee that there will not be long periods between visits, but the subsection would go on to read, if our Amendment were accepted:
…but not less than twice in each year, patients who are liable to be detained in a hospital or who are subject to guardianship, and on any such visit to afford an opportunity, on request, for private interview to any such patient as aforesaid…

The voluntary patient should surely have the opportunity to have this interview if he wants it, certainly at least once a year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock suggested, or perhaps every six months. If the Commission does not visit him, then he is denied this opportunity of an interview. The subsection goes on:
…or, where the patient is in a hospital, to any other patient in that hospital;
If we have several patients in a hospital whom the Commission does not seem to think it should visit for eighteen months, or perhaps two years, what happens to that provision? How are these rights of the patient to be made effective? To enable the intention of that subsection to be carried out, and made effective, the Secretary of State ought to lay down a period which he thinks appropriate. We should state which period we think is appropriate. There is, after all, no great difference of opinion about this. What is wrong with saying six months?
It may be true that a patient need not be visited every six months or every year, but we should be denying these people certain rights if we did not lay down a period of time for such visitations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look more kindly upon our Amendment than he has done so far. Having listened to the argument, I am rather suspicious of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. If we are to have part-time commissioners they might turn out to be only half-time commissioners. There may be great pressure of work, for there are 20,000 patients at present, with 6,000 awaiting admission, while there will be a large increase in the number of people coming within the scope of this Bill.
No doubt, given the present affluent society and the Tory Government, there is quite a good prospect that the number will increase even more. It is increasing every year under a Tory Government and I cannot see why it should not increase even more, particularly in this affluent society when a person is subject to all the pressures of hire purchase and the worries connected with it.

Mr. James Griffiths: Commercial T.V. and all the rest of it.

Mr. Willis: The point is, of course, that if great pressure should be put upon the commissioners—and there is no guarantee that there will not be, because we are now told that they need not be full-time, but half-time—surely that would create conditions in which the commissioners would say, "We think it appropriate if we visit these people every eighteen months." We must avoid that sort of situation. I would not necessarily blame the commissioners if they said that, but there is a responsibility upon the Government to avoid that, and that responsibility can only be accepted if the Government put something specific into the Bill.
The other point made by my hon. Friend was why there should be this difference of treatment between voluntary patients and detainees. I cannot understand why we should lay it down in one case and not in the other. The right hon. Gentleman gave no reasons for that at all. He did not say why there should be this differentiation, and I think that he must reply to that point.
I hope that my hon. Friends will vote on the matter unless we get a much more satisfactory explanation than we have had so far from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hamilton: I do not want to detain the Committee for very long, but I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) without advancing further the arguments that have already been put. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look at the wording of his Amendment and to ask himself what exactly it means. If the Amendment were accepted the subsection would read:
to visit, regularly and as often as they may think appropriate…
What exactly does that mean? It does not carry us one iota further.
The Bill as now drafted says that they shall
…visit, at such intervals as they may think appropriate…
In other words, it is entirely up to the commissioners to decide when they shall visit. The words which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to insert carry that power no further. It would still be within the province of the commissioners to decide how regular is

"regularly." The Amendment is the vaguest of all vagueness.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to meet the wishes of this side of the House and to make progress with the Bill, I cannot understand why he is not more specific in his language. He told us on the earlier Amendment that was rejected on a Division that he had taken opinion and thought about the matter very deeply. If this Amendment is the result of similar thought, then the sooner the right hon. Gentleman stops thinking the better, because I cannot think of any more vague and useless language than that of the Amendment.

Mr. William Hannan: I wish to follow up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) by saying that I think that the matter goes very much further than he said. In urging this specific Amendment upon the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend referred, of course, to paragraph (b).
What are the purposes of these limits? According to paragraph (a), they are to remedy any deficiency in the patient's care and treatment. Another purpose is to terminate improper detention if that should be happening or to prevent or redress loss or damage of the patient's property.
I should have thought that any one of those three purposes was sufficient to demand the specific attendance of the members of the welfare commission at hospitals. If it is really the care of the patient that we are concerned about, then what is proposed is not sufficient. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention to these points. They are important. Merely to leave the matter in this vague fashion and to leave the commissioners to determine when they will make the visits is not sufficient if their duties are to be properly carried out.
I should have thought that if there is a deficiency in the treatment of a patient, or if there is something lacking as regards his welfare, it would be too long to leave the matter for a year or eighteen months. Being specific and saying that a patient should be visited at least twice a year would give certain safeguards and would avoid some of the things which caused the inquiry into the


allegations of mistreatment, improper detention and all the rest of the complaints which this Bill happily deals with. There is real cause for the right hon. Gentleman to give an affirmative answer now by accepting our Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: Hon. Members have argued, as usual, with great persuasion and energy. But my foot, which was poised—I was interested to see how it was moving—did not move in the direction which they wanted, and I do not think that I can accept what they have said.
I will try to clear up certain points. This body is a responsible one and I do not think that it would be right to tie its members down to treating every single person in the same way. It would not be necessary to visit some patients twice a year, and I think that it is much wiser to leave the commissioners flexibility to visit patients as that seems desirable. One must accept that the body, if it is to function properly, would have to be a responsible body, as otherwise it would not be fulfilling any of its functions under the Act. One must leave it to decide for itself.
As for the wording which I have used in my Amendment, I would point out that it is always difficult to say precisely what difference it makes in a Statute when one uses a rather more specific phrase which does not lay down an absolutely rigid timetable and to see whether there is any difference from that of the previous wording. In this case, there is a difference, and an important difference. It conveys a different meaning to me. It has a different meaning from the words originally in the Statute.
The Amendment is certainly an attempt to meet the point without going to a degree of rigidity which I do not think it would be right to impose on a responsible body. I have heard no complaints through the years of a failure to visit owing to the wording used in the past, and I cannot think that there would be any likelihood of any complaint in the future.
This is an important point. Of course, quite apart from regular visits, a patient who wants to see a commissioner can

always ask to see him. He may be seen without waiting for any specific visit, and if a commissioner is visiting a certain patient in a hospital any other patient can ask to see him while he is there.

Miss Herbison: The Secretary of State says that if a patient wishes to see a commissioner he may write to him. But the right hon. Gentleman must realise that we are here dealing with mentally ill people. Not every patient who is most desperately in need of being seen by a commissioner will know his or her rights. Even if they have some knowledge of those rights, they might not be in a position to write to the commissioner. Therefore, we could not possibly accept that argument.

Mr. Maclay: I realise all that. I am pointing out that the commissioners will realise that that type of person is in a particular place and will visit him or her regularly. That is the whole point. We would not want to limit the commissioners to visit people boarded out, people with a known state of health and who are known to be living happily with parents who are happy to have them with them. We would not want the same regularity of visiting there as in the case of the person to whom the hon. Lady has referred. It would be a mistake, I think, to tie down the commissioners as tightly as that.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked about the difference between detained and voluntary patients. The point is that one of the jobs of the commissioners will be to see that the people who are detained ought to be detained. That is why there is a difference in the way in which their duties are set out in relation to patients compulsorily detained, on the one hand, and voluntary patients, on the other, the latter, of course, being able to leave hospital at any time. I hope that the House will accept what I have said.

Mr. Willis: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, may I remind him that he did not answer another point which was put during the discussion? Let us suppose that the period was one year—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that this is the Report stage.

Mr. Willis: I did say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that before the right hon. Gentleman sat down he ought to reply to a point to which he had not yet replied. It was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) about changing the period to once a year. Does he envisage patients who should not be visited for periods longer than one year, and would the commissioners have freedom to make their own arrangements under that period?

Mr. Maclay: I would not like to give a specific answer on that, because it must be up to the commissioners to decide what is right in relation to the individuals with whom they are dealing. I am sure that that is the right way to leave it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 17, at end insert:
but not less than twice in each year".— [Miss Herbison.]

Question, That those words be there inserted in the Bill, put and negatived.

Amendments made: In page 3, line 26, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 37, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 40, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 3. line 40, at the end to insert:
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section, the Mental Welfare Commission may interview, and a medical commissioner or a medical officer of the Commission may examine any patient in private.
(5) A medical commissioner or a medical officer of the Mental Welfare Commission may call for the medical records of any patient.
The effect of the Amendment is to make plain, first, that the commissioners of the Mental Welfare Commission may visit any patient in private; secondly, that medical commissioners or medical officers may examine any patient in private; and, thirdly, that medical commissioners or medical officers may call for medical reports and records in respect of any patient.
This meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee, and I hope that the House will feel that the points raised have been adequately covered.

Miss Herbison: We are glad that this Amendment has been put down by the Government, because it gives a greater safeguard to the patient than was given by the Bill as originally drawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 41, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 3, line 43, at the end to insert:
and to bring to his attention any such matter of which, in the opinion of the Commission, he ought to be apprised".
The effect of the Amendment is to make it plain that the Mental Welfare Commission may at any time bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend any matter arising out of the Bill of which they think he ought to know. In Committee, the Opposition were doubtful about this, and the Amendment meets an undertaking which I then gave to try to meet their fears.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The undertaking which was, I think, given by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Joint Under-Secretary concurring with it, was a very generous one, so generous, indeed, that the new wording now shows that he has become an enthusiastic convert to our point of view. We modestly wanted only to cover matters arising out of the Bill. As it now stands, it is much better because it means almost anything at all. This is an admirable point of view, and we are delighted to welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 2, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 4, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 6, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 11, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 5.—(DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO THE MENTAL WELFARE BOARD.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 13, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 18, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 12.—(THE TRAINING, ETC., OF PERSONS UNSUITABLE FOR EDUCATION AND OF MENTAL DEFECTIVES.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, after "(1)", to insert:
Without prejudice to the operation of section one of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946 (which among other things imposes a duty on education authorities to provide educational facilities for pupils who suffer from disability of mind)".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the Government Amendments to Clause 13, page 8, line 43, and to Clause 14, page 9, line 44.

Mr. Galbraith: This Amendment makes it plain that the duties imposed on education authorities by the Education Act are not to be affected by the fact that this Clause imposes on local health authorities a duty to provide training and occupation for children under 16 who have been reported to them by education authorities and for persons over 16 suffering from mental deficiency.
The Amendment thus puts it beyond doubt that education authorities can make provision for mentally handicapped persons, including mentally defective adults, notwithstanding that the local health authority also has a duty toward such persons. It meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee and ensures that education authorities which wish to make provision for mentally handicapped adults can continue to use their powers so to do.

Miss Herbison: As the hon. Gentleman says, this Amendment meets points which were raised in Committee. He has said that education authorities will still be able to continue to use their powers. I think he knows as well as I do that it really means that many education authorities will again have brought to their notice that they have these powers to use although they have not yet used them. The same applies to health authorities. There are many responsible people in Scotland who will be very pleased indeed to know that these Amendments are being made in the Bill.
I do not believe that the Amendments themselves will cause a great increase in the provision for mentally handicapped

young people, but I feel that it is important that, where local authorities have some drive in this matter, they should know that the education authority rather than the health authority can do the work which is so important. I hope that much of the work of education, particularly for the young adult over 16 who has been educated until the age of 16 in a special school, will be done under the auspices of the education authority and not under the auspices of the health authority. I welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 13, at the end to insert:
(3) It shall be the duty of a local health authority to make such provision as they may think necessary for securing that transport is available for the conveyance of persons for the purpose of their training and occupation in pursuance of this section; and accordingly section sixteen of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the provision by the Secretary of State of ambulances and other means of transport), shall not have effect in relation to the conveyance of persons as aforesaid.
This Amendment places on the local health authority the duty to make sure that transport is available where necessary for the conveyance of persons to occupation centres which the authority has provided by itself or under arrangements with voluntary organisations or other local health authorities. It meets an undertaking I gave in Committee to this effect.

Miss Herbison: Parents of these children who are in associations in Scotland wrote to us about this matter, and I know that they will be pleased that this Amendment is to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.—(POWER TO COMPEL ATTEND ANCE AT TRAINING CENTRES.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out from the beginning to "shall" in line 35 and to insert:
Subject to the provisions of this section, where a local health authority have established or made arrangements for the provision of a centre for suitable training and occupation in pursuance of the last foregoing section, that authority may, after consultation with the parent of a child who has been reported as aforesaid by the education authority, direct that that child, if of school age,".


This is largely a drafting Amendment to tidy up the wording of the Clause following the acceptance of an Amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee to require prior consultation with the parent before requiring a child to attend an occupation centre. The Amendment also has the effect of ensuring that the local health authority's power to compel attendance at a training centre will apply not only where the authority itself has established a centre or has made arrangements with a voluntary organisation for the provision of a centre but also where it has made arrangements with another local authority for the provision of a centre.
The last case was, unfortunately, not covered in the original wording of the Clause, and I accordingly recommend acceptance of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, to leave out from beginning to "that" in line 41 and to insert:
A local health authority shall not give a notice under this section unless they are satisfied—
(a).
This Amendment, read with the next one, ensures that before it gives notice requiring the attendance of a child at an occupation centre a local health authority must be satisfied not only that the child is not already receiving training comparable with that which he would receive at the centre but also that there is no reasonable cause for his failure to receive such training. The Amendment thus meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 43, after "centre", insert:
(b) that there is no reasonable cause within the meaning of the next following section for his failure to receive such training as aforesaid.—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 14.—(EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF S. 13.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34. to leave out "accused" and to insert:
person to whom notice has been given.
This and the following two Amendments are drafting Amendments to meet a point made in Committee. It was

thought, quite rightly, that "accused" was rather an offensive word, and that another phrase should be found; and we have now done so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 39, leave out "accused" and insert:
person to whom notice has been given.

In line 43, leave out "the accused" and insert "that person".

In line 44, leave out "in the opinion of the court".—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—(REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE HOSPITALS.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 25, leave out from "hospital" to the end of the line.—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, to leave out "applicant" and to insert:
person proposing to carry on the hospital
This is a drafting Amendment to tighten up the wording of the Bill. It seems appropriate to specify that the person proposing to carry on a hospital should hold the certificate of registration, rather than the applicant, who may merely be acting on behalf of that person. In Committee, a similar Amendment was made to Clause 16, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out that perhaps the same change ought to be made here. I am very grateful to him for pointing this out. The Amendment meets the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 10, line 33, to leave out from beginning of subsection to "may" in line 36 and to insert:
A certificate of registration shall specify the maximum number of persons who at any one time may receive care or treatment in the hospital to which the certificate relates, and such conditions as the Secretary of State
The Amendment makes it plain that a certificate of registration in respect of a private hospital must specify the maximum number of persons who may be received as patients at any one time in the hospital. The certificate may also specify additional conditions as to the category of mentally disordered patients


who may be received in the hospital. The Amendment thus meets an undertaking given in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Lord Advocate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 39, leave out "issued under this section".

In page 11, line 1, leave out from "registration" to "shall" in line 2.

In line 2, after second "hospital", insert "to which it relates".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 16.—(PRE-REQUISITES OF REGIS TRATION.)

Amendments made: In page 11, line 7, leave out "in respect of a private hospital".

In page 11, line 13, leave out "and".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move in page 11, line 15 at the end to insert:
and
(d) that the medical and nursing staff proposed is adequate for the hospital and is suitably trained and qualified.
The effect of the Amendment is to require that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should satisfy himself before registering a private hospital that there will be adequate and suitably trained and qualified medical and nursing staff. The Amendment meets an undertaking given in Committee in respect of a point raised by the Opposition.

Miss Herbison: This is an important Amendment. We are dealing here with private hospitals. Since we have regional hospital boards and other public bodies to safeguard these matters in the hospitals under our National Health Service, it seemed to us that the most stringent conditions should be placed upon private hospitals. We are glad that the Secretary of State will ensure that not only will there be an adequate number of medical staff but that they will be suitably qualified. I hope that means that they will be fully qualified—in other words, that they will have the qualifications that one would expect to find in a National Health Service hospital.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 17.—(DUTIES OF PERSONS CARRY ING ON PRIVATE HOSPITALS.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 29, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 11, line 29, at the end to insert:
(including facilities for inspection of the hospital)".
The effect of the Amendment is to make it plain that the person carrying on a private hospital has a duty to allow the Mental Welfare Commission to inspect the hospital, if necessary, in pursuance of its functions under the Bill. The Amendment meets a point pressed at considerable length by the Opposition in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 30, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In page leave out line 31 and insert "under this Act;".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, after "(2)", to insert:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure by regular inspection of any private hospital that that hospital is being properly carried on, and".
This Amendment imposes upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the duty to ensure by means of regular inspection that a private hospital is being properly carried on, and it meets an undertaking given in Committee.

Mr. Willis: We are galloping along at such a rate that it is rather difficult to follow all the intricacies of the Bill and the changes made, most of which are the result of the words of wisdom spoken in Committee by my hon. Friend.
I cannot understand why, having put down this Amendment, it was necessary to pass the Amendment we made earlier, which the hon. Member said was a drafting Amendment, in page 11, line 29, at the end to insert:
(including facilities for inspection of the hospital)".
I should have thought that this Amendment makes those words redundant. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary can explain why we should have had to pass the previous Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now talking about an Amendment that we have already passed. We cannot now debate whether that should have been passed or not. We must debate the present Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your guidance on this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have tried to keep in order, but it has been difficult because of the fact that we disposed of the previous Amendment before reaching this one. I suggest that if we agree to this Amendment there will be a chance for the other place to adopt my suggestion.

Mr. Galbraith: No.

Mr. Willis: Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary can explain the point so that, as a layman, I may follow what we are doing to the Bill as we go along. It is going rather too fast for me.

Mr. Galbraith: It is going fast only because the Government have gone out of their way to meet the various points made by the Opposition in Committee. We are not trying to slip anything through quickly.
The hon. Member's difficulty is concerned not so much with this Amendment as that to which we have already agreed. The reason for the previous drafting Amendment was that it is more appropriate to refer to the Commission's functions under this measure than to its functions in relation to patients in hospital. The Amendment we are now discussing enables the Secretary of State to carry out regular inspections of a private hospital as distinct from mere visitations; therefore, it is slightly wider in effect. It was for that reason that the previous Amendment had to be moved. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. Willis: I am not satisfied with that.

Mr. Galbraith: It is very difficult to deal with the hon. Member, because he perpetually looks a gift horse in the mouth.

Mr. Willis: No. I am glad that this is being put into the Bill. All I was wishing to point out was that it did not appear to me that the previous Amendment was necessary, once we provided that the Secretary of State should make regular inspections.

Miss Herbison: The Amendment that we are now discussing places a duty upon the Secretary of State to carry out inspections of these hospitals, and I am glad of that. I hope that he will use the power given him. I have in mind what happened in the case of the private schools in Scotland. In Scotland, we were ready to carry out inspections of these schools years before they were ready in England, but because we had a Tory Government in 1951 we had to wait years before this power was used in Scotland. It is important that the power which the Secretary of State is taking unto himself in this Clause shall be used.
If I may jump back to the other Amendment for a moment, I would point out that that deals with the Mental Welfare Commission, whereas the one we are discussing now deals with the Secretary of State. It is important that both powers should be given to both bodies.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I do not like the attitude of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. After all, here we are making necessary Amendments to the Bill without which it will not be so good a Measure. As I am sure will be accepted by the House, we are laying on the Secretary of State a duty to do something absolutely essential. In the past, we have had experience of responsibilities being laid on Ministers which have not been carried out.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how the House is to be kept informed of how this duty has been carried out? Will there be anything in the Annual Report from the Department of Health about the number of inspections of private hospitals which have been made, and so on? We are entitled to ask that this should not be merely a pious Amendment. Suspicion relating to that arises from the attitude of the Joint Under-Secretary and his reference to "looking a gift horse in the mouth" and things of that kind. This is a serious matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can satisfy me that not only is this Amendment to be made to the Statute, but that the duty will be carried out.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 11, line 39, at the end to insert:
(3) Any person authorised as aforesaid may interview any patient in private.


The effect of this Amendment is to give any officer authorised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to inspect private hospitals the right to interview any patient in the hospital in private. The Amendment meets an undertaking given during the Committee stage. I will not use the unfortunate words which gave offence to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and I apologise for them. No offence was intended.

Mr. Willis: As the Joint Under-Secretary of State did not see fit to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I think that before we accept this Amendment we ought to be told how the House of Commons is to be kept informed about what is going on in connection with these hospitals. It would be a matter of courtesy for the hon. Gentleman to give us some information.

Mr. Galbraith: This is a duty imposed on my right hon. Friend like many other duties, and the House has its own way of discovering whether the duties are being carried out and, indeed, of imposing the will of the House on my right hon. Friend. That is as far as I can go in answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Miss Herbison: Surely it would have been a simple thing to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that in the Annual Report of the Department of Health, or in some other report, the information for which he asked would be given. It is a matter of such vital importance that hon. Members ought to be kept aware of what is happening and surely it would have been easy for the Minister to say that in a Departmental report or a special report we should be told what is happening under the power which we are according to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Galbraith: That aspect is so obvious that I thought it would probably have occurred to the hon. Lady's two hon. Friends and that is why I did not mention it. I thought they were after something rather more complicated.

Mr. Dempsey: I consider that the Joint Under-Secretary might be clearer

in his attitude over this matter. We hope to see the maximum amount of supervision over the administration of private hospitals. I would welcome that in the interest of the community. But we are aware that there are different kinds of private hospitals and in some an investigation may be resented without Members of Parliament being made aware of the fact. In the interest of the service and of the House of Commons, there should be some means of enabling hon. Members to be told from time to time just how this is being operated. It is reasonable to ask the Minister to incorporate the result of this kind of activity in some booklet or publication.

Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is referring to the Amendment which we accepted previous to the Amendment that we are now discussing.

Mr. Dempsey: No, I am discussing the Amendment in line 39:
Any person authorised as aforesaid may interview any patient in private.

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry.

Mr. Dempsey: I am trying to visualise some circumstance which may arise following visits to private hospitals according to the terms of this Amendment. I am anxious to ascertain where hon. Members may obtain knowledge about the results of these visitations. I am in favour of the Amendment, but we should like to know the result of these visitations and I hope they will be reported in some document of which hon. Members may obtain a glimpse.

Mr. Ross: We have had a long experience of the silence of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. Hitherto, we have construed it as arising from embarrassment or ignorance, or an unwillingness to speak because he had run out of variations of an unsatisfactory argument. Now we are to understand that his silence means that he entirely agrees with what has been said by hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
The words to be inserted in the Clause
Any person authorised as aforesaid may interview any patient in private
will apply only if there is someone to conduct the interview and to carry out the duty which we have laid on the Secretary of State. Since this important


Amendment hinges on that, it becomes all the more important that we should be informed that this opportunity will be made available for patients in private hospitals by the Secretary of State accepting his responsibility and carrying out his duty to make regular inspections.
I therefore ask the Joint Under-Secretary to ensure that the House of Commons is kept informed that such opportunities have been available. The information should be contained in a paragraph in the Annual Report of the Department of Health, or in some other publication.

Mr. Galbraith: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. I do not think that it will be possible to give details of every interview, but certainly, the visitations to private hospitals which take place and that sort of thing is something that would appear in the annual report of the Department of Health so to that extent I can meet the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 21.—(RECORDS AND INSPECTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 13, line 36, at the end to insert:
and to interview any person resident therein in private".
The effect of this Amendment is to give any officer, authorised by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the registration authority to inspect residential homes for persons suffering from mental disorder, the right to interview any resident in the home in private. The Amendment also meets an undertaking given during the Committee stage discussions.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(ADMISSION AND DETENTION OF PATIENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 9, leave out from "by" to "and" in line 11 and insert:
two medical recommendations which shall be in the prescribed form".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 25.—(GUARDIANSHIP OF PATIENTS.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move in page 16, line 18, to leave out "accompanying the application".

I think that it would interest the Committee to know that the words proposed to be deleted are unnecessary, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Ross: The Government are learning.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 27.—(MEDICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.)

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move in page 16, line 45, to leave out "either together or" and to insert "separately".
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we discussed the next Amendment, in line 46, at the end to insert:
or, where no objection has been made by the patient or his nearest relative, together".
The effect of the Amendments is to require the two medical practitioners giving the two recommendations in support of an application for admission or a guardianship application to examine the patient separately if the patient or the nearest relative objects to the examinations taking place together.
Amendments were moved during the Committee stage to require the examinations always to take place separately and, I think, to prevent either of the two doctors have access to the recommendations of the other. It was pointed out at that time that the Amendments were not acceptable because they would prevent a proper assessment of a patient's condition, for example, by means of domiciliary consultation between the patient's general practitioner and the psychiatrist of the hospital to which the patient is to be admitted who has been called in for consultation by the general practitioner.
An undertaking was given to look carefully at the question of separate examinations. Consultation between the general practitioner and the hospital consultant is regarded as the ideal procedure for obtaining a proper opinion as to whether the patient's mental disorder warrants compulsory action under the Bill. This Clause incorporates various provisions designed to make that possible. In the first place, one of the medical recommendations is to be given by


a doctor approved by the regional hospital board as having experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder. He may be, and commonly will be, the consulting psychiatrist from the hospital which the patient is to enter.
The medical staff of the 'hospital which the patient is to enter are no longer barred from giving one of the medical recommendations unless, of course, the patient is to be accommodated as a private patient or to enter a private 'hospital. The second medical recommendation is, where practicable, to be given by the patient's general practitioner or by another doctor who has previous acquaintance of him. These provisions accord with the Dunlop Committee recommendations.
6.0 p.m.
An insistence on separate examinations in every case would, we believe, make it difficult to fulfil the intention of the provisions. This would mean that the special experience in mental disorder possessed by the approved doctor would never be related to the general practitioner's special knowledge of the patient, his past history and background. A proper domiciliary consultation between the two doctors would become impossible, and I am advised by the experts, and I myself believe, that this must weaken the medical recommendations considerably and could be a retrograde step. We feel that the provisions for the examination to take place together is a safeguard to the patient since it ensures that a proper assessment can be made of his condition. For these reasons we cannot agree to go as far as was asked in Committee and to require that medical examinations should always take place separately.
We agree, however, that the examinations should be separate where a patient or the nearest relative objects to their taking place together, and the Amendments will achieve that. A patient, or a nearest relative who considers that the patient cannot express himself freely to one doctor in the presence of the other, or conceivably that there might be collusion between the two doctors, will thus be able to insist on separate examinations.
We very much hope that this will help to meet the fears which were expressed in Committee that examinations con

ducted together might not offer sufficient protection to the patient. I hope that the House feels that we have gone as far as we can reasonably go to meet what I am sure is in the minds of hon. Members opposite.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry, but I have come to the conclusion even more firmly than when I first read the Amendments on the Notice Paper that the Government have gone no distance at all in this matter. I will not go over the case which we made in Committee, but it was to ensure, in the first instance, that there would not be collusion between the two doctors. We wanted to ensure that these recommendations would come independently from the two doctors. We have been told today, in effect, that the only time that we shall have a separate examination of the patient is when there has been no objection either by the patient or by the nearest relative.
Let us first consider the patient. He is to be examined because it is suspected that he is suffering from a mental disorder. Will he know that he can object to being examined at the same time by two practitioners, or by the consultant and the practitioner? Even if he knows that he has a right to object, if he is mentally ill he may not know how to object.
Let us next consider the nearest relative. If the Secretary of State will cast his eye no further down the Notice Paper than the Amendment in line 21, page 17, he will see that the Government are meeting a point made from this side of the House seeking to ensure that in the recommendations there is no collusion and that no relative with a pecuniary interest will in such a way try to get a person detained in a hospital. The Government accepted our argument in Committee and I am glad that they have introduced that Amendment, but if we were able to convince them how important it was that they should put down such an Amendment, then it is strange that they feel that they have met the point we seek to make by moving the Amendments to lines 45 and 46.
The Secretary of State said, in effect, that it is usually a good thing for the patient's own general practitioner and the consultant from the hospital to get together and to make the examination. On some occasions it may be a good


thing. it would be a good thing if it were a physical illness and it might be a good thing even in some kinds of mental illness.
We must put the benefits which would accrue from that against the very grave disabilities which might accrue if there were any suspicion of collusion. We do not legislate for the good in this world but for those who might want to do things which are wrong. For these reasons we do not accept the Amendment in line 46, and we hope that the Secretary of State will give further thought to this matter.

Mr. Maclay: Perhaps I may have the permission of the House briefly to reply. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has weighed the balance as to where the good lies and come down on one side. I understand her reasons, but, although I have given careful thought to this matter, because it obviously affects one of the fundamental points in which we are all interested, I am not convinced by her argument that there is not a greater risk of harm to a greater number of patients by accepting what she wants to put in the Bill than by accepting what we want to put in the Bill. There must be very many cases in which it is extremely desirable for there to be full consultation on or examination of the patient by the doctor who has always known the patient and the specialist who has been called in. It would be a great mistake to make it impossible for that to happen.
We have gone a long way to meet the request made by hon. Members opposite. I realise that there could be cases in which, because of his mental condition, the patient could not know of the provision in the Statute, but we cannot cover every conceivable case in such a Statute as this, where we are dealing with human beings and human conditions. I think that the situation is fairly well protected, as far as we can hope to go, by providing the protection that if the patient or the nearest relative is able to express an objection, he can do so, and attention has to be paid to it. We should be running a grave risk of harming the treatment of patients if we went the full distance that the hon. Lady recommends.
I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There are several points which must be cleared up. We are not here discussing treatment. This is a judicial process. We are about to deprive somebody of his liberty. We are about to have two medical recommendations which will be submitted and which could even be taken to law to decide whether such a person will be committed at State expense and against his own will in a State institution for treatment. That is how I understand the Clause, although I began to wonder whether I was reading the same Clause or the same Bill when I heard the Secretary of State's reply. We are here discussing not treatment but a statutory procedure concerning the liberty of the citizen. It is a most serious matter.
There were two points in the Minister's reply which I cannot understand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, on the same page of the Notice Paper there is an obvious contradiction to this Amendment. In a later Amendment the Government have met us, quite sensibly, in the case where a nearest relative or some other person, possibly for pecuniary reasons, may seek to act maliciously against a person who might be detained.
To qualify the concession which he is making, the Secretary of State is introducing the phrase "or nearest relatives" and is calling it a protection. But it might not be a protection; it might be the very entrapment of the patient. People seem to have the impression, for some peculiar reason, and certainly some Ministers have given that impression, that patients in this position are violently aggressive and know their own rights and their law inside out and know exactly where they stand.
That is a ridiculous impression. Many of these patients are inarticulate, they are passive, they are cowed, they are beaten. Society has broken them by the stress of modern conditions. They do not know their law. If the nearest relative has some pecuniary interest, he might not protect the patient.
We have argued the case in Committee that there ought to be separate examinations, and the first Amendment here proposed meets our case exactly. But the second Amendment says that this separate examination will not be necessary if two people do not object,


namely, the patient and the nearest relative. We are arguing the fact that the patient may not be in a position to make a sensible objection. He may not even know that he has the right to do so.
We are also arguing that the nearest relative may not have a benevolent disposition towards the patient. The law of lunacy has always been anxious to make sure that the patient would not be exploited by a relative in any cruel way. The exploitation of the mentally ill by the nearest relative has been the subject of human stories and plays for a long time. This is the sensible point which we are discussing.
There is another point to which I should like to receive a reply. In Committee, we discussed this thoroughly and the Joint Under-Secretary, who is not here at the moment, made two contradictory points. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Scottish Standing Committee of 29th March he said:
If one has to have this joint con-sultation,"—
referring to the two doctors together—
this comparing of notes, what is the point in preventing one doctor from seeing the recommendation of the other? How can it be enforced?
That is the first assertion of the Joint Under-Secretary—that the two doctors, whether they see a patient separately or together, are bound to come to the same conclusions and to write out the same recommendation.
Later, however, the Joint Under-Secretary said:
Each would not even see what the other had written. This is going back on everything we have said so far about consultation and comparing notes, but when it actually comes to writing the recommendations, one person may not see what the other has written. Of course, they will be independent of each other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 29th March, 1960, c. 482–3]
This was said in response to an argument by myself and other hon. Members on this side of the House that there ought to be independent recommendations because we were taking away someone's liberty. The two doctors had to justify this decision and should examine the patient separately and write their recommendations separately.
I think that it would be very unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in this second Amendment. The second

Amendment applies to every person who is detained or whose detention is sought. This concerns a large number of people and it will apply in every case. If the right hon. Gentleman persists with the second Amendment, will he tell us whether the recommendations are to be written independently of each other, or written jointly? If they are to be written jointly, it will be disastrous. We shall, in effect, have not two people appearing before the sheriff, but only one.
We have been preening ourselves because we thought that in the Scottish Bill we have an advantage over the English Act in that we have the sheriff as part of the judicial process. Is this to be vitiated by having, in effect, only one recommendation? The first Amendment, of course, may stand. The second ought to be looked at again. Perhaps, in another place, the Government would be willing to make whatever Amendment was thought advisable. We strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman that he is making a mistake which will weaken the whole judicial process by tying the two doctors together and not making them independent. In this Bill, if there is a bias in his mind, so he told us, it must be in favour of the patient, as against committal by the State, and, between the public interest and the patient, it must be in favour of the patient. It will not favour the patient if the right hon. Gentleman allows the two recommendations to run together.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: I ask the Secretary of State to consider another aspect of this Amendment of which I have had personal experience in days gone by. We must all realise, in considering this Clause and these Amendments, that we are taking away a person's liberty. We are certifying a person as a mental defective, which, of course, means institutional treatment.
If we err, we should err on the safe side and ensure that the liberty of the subject, which we in this country treasure so much, is adequately protected. If we are to arrive at that adequate protection, I think that by accepting the latter Amendment we should, in all probability, be on the verge of making a very great mistake.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has


pointed out, we are dealing with a person who is suffering from stress and strain and probably from the most severe of all illness, namely, a mental condition. That individual is not capable of objecting and of understanding his or her rights in accordance with the Statutes of this country. That person is wholly dependent on someone else, and the someone else mentioned in the Amendment is a relative. There is an old but very true saying, "You choose your friends but you do not choose your relatives"
It reminds me of a very sad case of which I knew in which a situation of this nature developed. Indeed, the relatives had such a pecuniary interest that they managed to arrange to coerce the elderly person, who was suffering from mental trouble at that time, to allow them to enter her local authority house on the pretext of assisting. Once they were settled in the local authority house, after a period of a few months the relatives were so helpful in calling on doctor after doctor that they had that elderly person certified and removed to an institution. They then took over the tenancy of the local authority house.
It was possible to coerce some poor soul suffering from that dreaded trouble, mental illness, to enable them to become occupants of a local authority house. I would say to the Secretary of State that because of that unpleasant experience the local authority, which is one of the largest today in Scotland, has altered its housing regulations to prevent the transfer of a house while the tenant is alive to any other member of the household.
I have known of cases where we have had individuals who have been detained for years in a certain mental hospital in Scotland. During those years, those persons have continued as tenants of local authority houses because of that most regrettable experience. I quote that case to the Secretary of State to show how dangerous the second Amendment could be, and I appeal to him to reconsider it with a view to withdrawing it.

Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman said that he believed that in some cases it would be in the better interest of the patient—indeed, I think he said in a great many cases—that two medical practitioners should examine the patient

together. I should like him to tell the House in what circumstances it could be to the advantage of the patient to have these two examinations at the one time. The Bill makes it quite clear that before a person can be detained there must be two recommendations, not one recommendation by two medical practitioners, but two medical recommendations. That is essential.
The Secretary of State says that one of the two medical recommendations would normally come from the patient's ordinary doctor, from the general practitioner who knows the patient well, and the other would normally be a recommendation
by a practitioner approved for the purposes of this section by a Regional Hospital Board as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder…"
The second person, the specialist, will normally come into the case after the patient has been under the treatment and observation of the general practitioner for a considerable time. Therefore, the general practitioner has seen the patient on his own, not on one occasion, but on numerous occasions. Then the specialist is being called in.
Does the Secretary of State say that, since the specialist is being called in to see whether he can give a recommendation in favour of the detention of the patient, it is in the interests of the patient that the specialist should be accompanied by the general practitioner when he examines the patient? Is it in the interests of the patient because it is more likely that a recommendation will be made in favour of detention, and thus the liberty of the subject taken away, or is it in the interests of the patient because it is less likely that he will be detained and his liberty will be preserved?
What does the Secretary of State consider to be the interests of the patient? We are discussing whether or not the patient will be detained and his liberty taken from him. What is in the interests of the patient? Is it that he Should be detained or that he should have his liberty preserved?

Mr. Maclay: I do not know.

Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State says that he does not know what is in the best interests of the patient. Before


the specialist is called in, the general practitioner has already made up his mind to make a recommendation in favour of detention. Does the Secretary of State think that that would not be so, or does he think that the general practitioner is undecided and would like to have the advice of the specialist before he makes up his mind whether the person shall be detained? If that is so, an application is being made, but the general practitioner does not know whether he can complete a prescribed form for recommending the detention of the patient until he has had the advice of the specialist from the adjacent mental hospital in which the person would be detained.
If the two doctors are to examine the patient together it is clear that the decision would be taken by one medical practitioner, namely, the specialist. If there are to be two medical recommendations, they should clearly be two medical recommendations or decisions which have been arrived at independently by the two medical practitioners concerned in making the recommendations. One of them would normally be the general practitioner, who has already made up his mind before the specialist is called in.
Let the specialist himself then see the patient. If the specialist takes the view that it is in the interests of the patient and of society generally that he should make a recommendation for the detention of the patient, let him make the recommendation, but that would be two separate recommendations.
The Secretary of State should realise that the Amendment gives the impression that the Legislature takes the view that it is desirable to have two separate examinations, because the Clause will then say, "examined the patient separately". The Amendment in line 46, which we are discussing with this Amendment, goes on to provide that
where no objection has been made by the patient or his nearest relative
the examinations may be conducted together.
In the Amendment in line 46 the Secretary of State takes away the whole value of the Amendment in line 45, because the Secretary of State knows as well as any other hon. Member that in the vast majority of cases the persons

concerned will not know their legal rights. If the general practitioner comes along with the specialist and asks that they see the sick person together, neither the patient concerned nor the relatives will know that they have a right under the law to demand separate examinations by these two medical practitioners.
Nobody can dispute that. It is so clearly and obviously the fact that if Parliament takes the view that it is desirable to have separate examinations it should say so and provide for separate examinations. I cannot see in What conceivable circumstances it would be in the interests of the patient that the two examinations should take place at the one time.

Mr. Maclay: It is not easy to get absolutely clear the various degrees of arguments which have been advanced in the last few minutes. I am not quarrelling with their quality, but there has been a shading off from one point to another which it has been rather difficult for me to follow accurately.
I will try to clear up one or two points of substance straightaway. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asked me what I thought was in the patient's best interests. No one can say. The patient's best interests must be to have the best treatment, which may not be to enter a hospital. It may be to go in as a voluntary patient, or it may be in the best interests of the patient to go in as a compulsory detainee. Obviously one cannot answer that.
One of the reasons behind my main argument on this point is that it would be a great pity if any obstacle were put in the way of coming to the wisest decision. That is why it is very necessary for there to be the possibility not only of consultation but of joint examination. One reason for a joint examination in many cases might well be that it would be very much easier for the prospective patient, if that is the word we are using to describe the person concerned. He might well be much happier if he had his own family doctor with him at the time. It may very well be to his advantage in reaching a proper decision on what should happen to his future.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) picked me up for using the word "treatment". The hon. Member was possibly being a little narrow in


his interpretation of "treatment", because what we are talking about here is in many ways treatment. It is the ultimate decision as to whether there should be detention or voluntary admission.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: By definition the patient at this stage will not accept voluntary treatment. He would be a very poor practitioner who brought in a psychiatrist to give a second opinion if he had not already tried to persuade the patient to accept voluntary treatment. The general practitioner is bringing in the psychiatrist at this juncture in order to have a second medical recommendation for compulsory detention. By definition, "compulsory detention" means that the patient does not wish to enter hospital. There is no party interest in this matter. It is a legal process as to how we are to give the patient the treatment he needs. We ask for two witnesses. The Secretary of State is ensuring that we shall get only one.

Mr. Maclay: By no means. Another point of substance is that there will be two separate certificates. Both will be signed on soul and conscience. We must be a little careful. I realise that one has to think occasionally of something bad, but I find it difficult to believe that there will be many occasions on which two separate medical practitioners will sign wrong statements on soul and conscience. I do not like to think of that as anything but the most inconceivable and remote possibility.

Miss Herbison: The Minister says that he finds it difficult to believe that two separate medical practitioners would sign wrong statements on soul and conscience. That is not my great worry. If the two medical practitioners examine a person together, the general practitioner, having a long knowledge of the person, could exercise great influence on the consultant. Even by discussion and being together, although they did not want to have collusion, there is always the fear that the wrong decision would be reached.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Lady expresses one view, but there are others that are held very strongly. I am not a medical person, of course, so I cannot speak with full conviction, but I have taken very careful advice. It is very strongly felt

in this matter affecting the freedom of the individual, that unless there is the possibility, unless objection is taken, of the family doctor being in attendance, one might not get the best decision.
I do not know a lot about medical conditions and practice, but I am sure it must be very helpful to anyone forming an opinion affecting the freedom of an individual—not only for treatment—to have, if possible, access to information from someone who knows the history of the patient. I hope that I may never be in that position myself, but I know that if I were I should prefer to have my own family doctor around when someone else came to the door. This is a very serious matter, and it has rightly been debated with great seriousness, but I must tell the House that I am convinced that what we propose is right, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 46. at end insert:
or, where no objection has been made by the patient or his nearest relative, together "—[Mr. Maclay.]

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page 17, line 18, to leave out "and".

Mr. Speaker: I presume that it is convenient with this Amendment to discuss that in page 17, line 21.

Mr. Maclay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The effect of the Amendment is to require a doctor signing a medical recommendation accompanying an application for admission or a guardianship application to state in the recommendation whether he is related to the patient, and whether he has any financial interest in the admission of the patient into hospital or his reception into guardianship.
An Amendment was moved in the Standing Committee which would have had the effect of prohibiting a medical recommendation from being given by a doctor standing in certain professional, financial or family relationships to the applicant, or to the doctor giving the other medical recommendation, or to the patient. The object of those who moved that Amendment was to ensure that there could be no collusion between the patient's relatives, or between doctors related to each other in any way,


to secure the patient's compulsory admission to hospital.
We resisted that Amendment because it was felt that the Bill contained other safeguards, in particular, the requirement that applications are to be approved by the sheriff, which would effectively deter anyone from collusion of the type at which the Amendment was aimed. However, in the light of the discussion of that Amendment, we undertook to look at it again, in particular, with regard to the question of persons with a pecuniary interest in the admission of the patient to hospital.
For the reasons given in the debate in the Standing Committee, we still feel that it would be wrong to adopt the previous suggestion and prohibit from giving a recommendation doctors standing in certain relationships to the applicant, the patient, or to the other doctor giving the recommendation. The prohibitions suggested would have covered a very wide range of persons and, particularly in remote areas of Scotland, might have made it difficult to find two doctors who could properly sign the two recommendations in respect of a patient.
I hesitate to repeat, though I will do so, the extreme example that the suggested prohibitions would have made it impossible for one medical recommendation to be signed by the father-in-law of an assistant employed by the doctor signing the other recommendation. That is an extreme example, but the suggested requirement would have made that impossible. As I say, that is somewhat far fetched, but it could happen.
Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult to enforce such a provision. When it was suggested in the previous debate that the proper course would be to leave the sheriff discretion to take into account, when deciding whether or not to approve an application, the relationships or financial interests of the doctors concerned, the movers of the Amendment themselves pointed out that the sheriff might not always be aware of the relationships involved.
After full consideration, therefore, the best course seems to be to ensure, by means of a statement in the prescribed form of recommendation, that the sheriff is always informed whether the doctors signing the two recommenda

tions are related to the patient, and whether they have any financial interest in the admission of the patient to hospital or his reception into guardianship. This will ensure that the sheriff will look particularly carefully at any recommendations given by doctors who are related to the patient, or Who have a financial interest, and be careful to discount any possibility of collusion before he approves the application. At the same time, the provision will not give rise to the practical objections to the previous suggestion, and I hope that this attempt to meet the spirit of the previous Amendment will prove acceptable to its movers.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: We are very pleased that the Amendment we moved in Standing Committee has been treated so well. I then asked the Joint Under-Secretary to consider perhaps one-seventh of that Amendment, and he graciously consented to consider it. Later, he undertook to look at the whole thing again, and we have now obviously got more than one-seventh.
The Amendment was stimulated by the fact that in the English Act there is a four-paragraph Section dealing with all sorts of relations which act as a disqualification. We now have this new suggestion from the Secretary of State that in the form prescribed for use in submission to the legal process before the sheriff these safeguards can be incorporated, and we are very pleased to see this provision written into the Measure.
As I said in the Standing Committee:
I am almost ready to give away the father-in-law of the assistant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 31st March, 1960; c. 500.]
That was if we could get an assurance that the whole thing would be considered. It has been considered, and on behalf of my hon. Friends I should like to say that we welcome the Amendment, which is an important one.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 21, at the end insert:
and
(e) such recommendations shall contain a statement as to whether the person signing the recommendation is related to the patient and of any pecuniary interest that that person may have in the admission of the patient to hospital or his reception into guardianship."—[Mr. Maclay.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 29.—(EFFECT OF APPLICATIONS.)

Amendment made: In page 18, line 14, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Maclay.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 18, line 17, at the end to insert:
(3) Where a patient has been admitted or received as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the responsible medical officer to examine the patient, or to obtain from another medical practitioner a report on the condition of the patient, within the period of seven days ending on the twenty-eighth day after his admission or reception, as the case may be; and, if the responsible medical officer does not discharge the patient, he shall so inform the Mental Welfare Commission, the nearest relative of the patient and the board of management or, as the case may be, the local health authority concerned.
This Amendment has the effect that where a patient has been admitted to hospital or received into guardianship in pursuance of an application under Part IV of the Bill, the responsible medical officer is required, firstly, to examine the patient, or to obtain a report on his condition from another doctor, with the week ending on the 28th day from the patient's admission into hospital or reception into guardianship. Secondly, if, in consequence, he does not discharge the patient, the responsible medical officer is required to inform the Mental Welfare Commission, the patient's nearest relative, and the board of management or the local health authority concerned in guardianship cases.
This Amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave in the Standing Committee to look into the point of a special kind of review at the end of 28 days, and I trust that it may meet with the approval of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I must say that I very much like what has almost become the incantation "this is to meet" and so on, but what I am anxious about is this. When in the Standing Committee I referred to what I called the 28-day concession, the Joint Under-Secretary constantly reminded me of the limited nature of this concession, and I was never quite sure what he had conceded. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who proposed the original Amendment, who finished by saying that he would perform the great act of faith and trust the Tories.
As I say, I was never quite sure of the exact nature of the concession, and because of the hon. Gentleman's interventions I was not sure whether it went very far. I should like him to tell me whether by writing into the Measure what is now proposed this will become an operative provision, in the sense that it will not simply become an administrative mechanism that is ignored, and is simply a sop to Parliament.
This provision is probably the equivalent of the Section in the English Act providing for observation. When it comes to the question of transference of patients, a point on which the then Solicitor-General for Scotland was involved in the Committee, it might be possible for a patient held during the observation period under the English Act to be transferred from an English to a Scottish hospital. I suppose that this wording will meet the legal complexities of that situation, but I do not know—I merely seek information.
In other words, to use that unfortunate phrase—though I myself do not think it so unfortunate—about a gift horse: what kind of horse is it? Is it true that it meets the legal position of the English provision regarding transference? Is it intended to be an active provision, and that, in fact, the detaining officer or the responsible medical officer concerned will do this job, and that it is not thought that administratively—and I do not lay the accusation too heavily—the provision is dead even before it is written into the Statute?
I do not ask these questions simply as a form of welcome to the tabling of the Amendment, but because there are those who, like myself, feel that this is a very important matter. One of the biggest advances in the English Act related to this question of observation, and it would be a great pity if it were to be relegated administratively into the idea that it was a passive provision that rarely came to light. I should like to see it very much to the fore in the minds of responsible medical officers everywhere.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need have any fear as to the quality of this particular gift horse. When we discussed the matter in Committee I was, perhaps, not as forthcoming as I might have been, but


when we looked into the subject afterwards I saw what the hon. Gentleman was getting at. We therefore put this provision into the Bill with the intention that it should not be a sop administratively but that it should meet the English position, and that there should be a proper review at this period.
Indeed, the fact that there is to be a proper review is indicated by the requirement that the Mental Welfare Commission has to be informed if the responsible medical officer decides not to discharge the patient. The hon. Gentleman can therefore be assured that this is a definite increase in the machinery which is designed, as he wanted, to safeguard the liberty of the patient.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 38, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 30.— [RECTIFICATION OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page
18, line 45, after "may" to insert:
not later than seven days after the expiration of the said period".
The effect of this Amendment is to impose a time limit of 21 days from the date of admission into hospital or reception into guardianship on action taken to amend an application or medical recommendation that has been found to be incorrect or defective. As it stands, subsection (1) requires that the mistake or insufficiency in the application or medical recommendation must be discovered within 14 days from the patient's admission to hospital. It was pointed out in Committee by, I think, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that there was no time limit for the rectification of the mistake or insufficiency once it had been discovered. I undertook to look into that and this Amendment meets that point by allowing up to a further seven days after the first 14 days for the Amendment to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 5, leave out "therein mentioned" and insert "first mentioned therein".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 31.—(EMERGENCY ADMISSION.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 19, line 42, at the end to insert:
(2) Except in the case of a recommendation to which the next following section refers, an emergency recommendation shall not be made unless, where practicable, the consent of a relative or of a mental health officer has been obtained; and the recommendation shall be accompanied by a statement that such a consent as aforesaid has been obtained or, as the case may be, by a statement of the reasons for the failure to obtain that consent.
The effect of this Amendment is to require the consent of a relative, not necessarily the nearest relative, or of the mental health officer to be obtained before an emergency recommendation is made, if this is practicable. The Amendment ensures also that the recommendation will be accompanied by a statement showing whether such consent has been obtained or the reason why it was not obtained. These provisions, however, do not apply in a case where a patient is voluntarily in a hospital when the emergency recommendation has to be made.
The Amendment meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee, and I recommend its acceptance.

Miss Herbison: This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is attending an important committee at present, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Again to safeguard the interests of the patient, it was felt that wherever it was at all possible a relative or the mental health officer should be concerned here. I am very glad to see the second part of the Amendment which provides that the recommendation shall be accompanied by a statement showing that such consent has been obtained or, if not, the reasons why it has not been given. That is just about the greatest safeguard in this instance which we can have.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 20, line 3, at the end to insert:
(4) Where a patient is admitted to a hospital in pursuance of this section, it shall, where practicable, be the duty of the board of management without delay to inform the nearest relative of the patient and, except in the case of a patient referred to in the next following section, some responsible person residing with the patient.


The effect of this Amendment is to require the board of management of a hospital to which a patient is admitted on an emergency recommendation to inform where practicable the nearest relative of the patient and some responsible person residing with the patient. The duty to inform the nearest relative applies whether the patient was actually admitted on the emergency recommendation or whether he was already in the hospital under informal arrangements. The duty to inform some responsible person residing with the patient applies only where the patient was admitted in an emergency on the emergency recommendation.
The Amendment meets points which were raised in Committee, and I recommend its acceptance.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 34.—(CORRESPONDENCE OF PATIENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 7, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 35.—(LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM HOSPITAL.)

Amendments made: In page 22, line 22, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 25, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 37.—(TRANSFER OF PATIENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 24. line 6, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 24, line 12, after "to", to insert:
his nearest relative and to".
The effect is to require the nearest relative to be told within seven days of the transfer when a patient is transferred from one hospital to another, from one guardian to another, or between hospital and guardianship under this Clause. It meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee.
I assure the House that administrative arrangements will be made to ensure that the nearest relative is told whenever possible before a transfer takes place, but since practical difficulties may arise to prevent this, for example where a transfer has to be made urgently, the statutory

duty is confined to a requirement on the receiving hospital or local authority to inform the nearest relative within seven days of the transfer.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 12, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 39.—(DURATION OF AUTHORITY.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 25, line 44, to leave out
to examine the patient or".
This Amendment should be read with the Amendments in page 25, line 46, and page 26, line 7. Together, they have the effect that, first, the responsible medical officer must always obtain a report on the patient's condition from another medical practitioner before deciding, at the yearly or two-yearly reviews of authority, whether or not a patient's detention in hospital should be continued; secondly, that a copy of the report by the other doctor must go with the responsible medical officer's own report to the board of management and the Mental Welfare Commission in those cases where the responsible medical officer decides to renew the authority for detention.
The Amendments in page 26, lines 12, 14 and 20, have a similar effect in relation to the renewal of authority in respect of patients under guardianship. There are then other Amendments altering in a similar way the procedure at the special review at the age of 25, namely, those in page 27, lines 6, 8 and 16.
The requirement regarding the second medical opinion which these Amendments provide for meets an undertaking I gave in Committee and, in a way, this is one of the most radical alterations that we have made in the Bill.

Mr. Hannan: I should like to tell the Joint Under-Secretary of State how reasonable and sensible his speeches are now compared with the speeches he made in Committee. Also, he seems to have great conviction behind his words now in comparison with his approach in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 46, at end insert:
and thereafter to assess the need for the detention of the patient to be continued;".

In page 26, line 6, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 7, at end insert:
along with the report first mentioned".

In line 12, leave out:
to examine the patient or".

In line 14, at end insert:
and thereafter to assess the need for the guardianship of the patient to be continued".

In line 19, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 20, at end insert:
along with the report first mentioned".[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 40.— [DETENTION OR GUARDIAN SHIP OF CERTAIN PATIENTS AFTER THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE.)

Amendments made: In page 27, line 6, leave out:
to examine the patient or".

In line 8, after "form", insert:
and thereafter to assess the need for the detention or guardianship of the patient to be continued".

In line 15, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In line 16, after "form", insert:
along with the report first mentioned".

In line 25, leave out from "patient" to "to".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 43.—(DISCHARGE OF PATIENTS.)

Amendments made: In page 28, line 35, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".

In page 29, line 3, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 48.—(APPOINTMENT BY SHERIFF OF ACTING NEAREST RELATIVE.)

Amendment made: In page 33, line 8, after "relative", insert "(including the nearest relative)".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 33, line 25, at the end to insert:
(c) where the application is made by the nearest relative of the patient, that he is unwilling or considers it undesirable to continue to act as such.
The effect of the Amendment is to enable the nearest relative of a patient to apply to the sheriff for an order appointing somebody else to act as nearest relative where he is unwilling or

considers it undesirable to continue to act himself in this capacity. It meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 51.—(APPEALS TO THE SHERIFF.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 35, line 9, after "powers". to insert "and duties".
The effect of this Amendment is rather more substantial than might appear. It gives the appellant considerable added safeguards. It means that the sheriff, when hearing an appeal, will have to do two things. He will have two duties placed upon him. He will not be able to dismiss an appeal without affording an opportunity of being heard to the person making the appeal and to any witness whom that person may wish to call. Secondly, the sheriff will be required to hold the appeal proceedings in private if the patient or appellant so wishes.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 35, line 11, at the end to insert:
(3) For the purpose of advising whether such an appeal as aforesaid should be made by or in respect of a patient who is liable to be detained or subject to guardianship under this Part of this Act, or of furnishing information as to the condition of a patient for the purposes of such an appeal, any medical pracitioner authorised by or on behalf of the patient or by the nearest relative of the patient, as the case may be, may, at any reasonable time, visit the patient and may examine him in private.
This Amendment meets an undertaking given in Committee. It provides that a doctor authorised by or on behalf of a patient or by the nearest relative may visit a patient at any reasonable time and in private in order to advise the patient or the nearest relative whether to appeal or to provide information on the patient's condition for the purposes of such an appeal.

7.0 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I consider that this is a very important Amendment. It meets a point made by hon. Members on this side. It seems to me that in an appeal there ought to be the greatest possible evidence at hand for the person making the appeal. It gives a person the chance to get expert opinion and evidence.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 57.—(REQUIREMENTS AS TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move in page 40, line 9, at the end to insert:
; and where the court is of opinion that further time is necessary in the interests of the accused for consideration of that report, or the substance of any such report, it shall adjourn the case.
(4) For the purpose of calling evidence to rebut the evidence contained in any such report as aforesaid, arrangements may be made by or on behalf of an accused person detained in a hospital for his examination by any medical practitioner, and any such examination may be made in private".
Again, this point was raised in Committee. It concerns a case which might arise where, owing to the late receipt of the medical report, a patient might suffer prejudice. It was in order to avoid that that the Amendment was tabled. First, it puts a duty on the court to adjourn a case where it is of opinion that it is in the interests of the patient that he should have an adjournment. Secondly, it makes provision for examination in private at a hospital for the purpose of calling evidence to rebut what I might call the other side's medical evidence.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 60.—(POWER OF COURT TO RESTRICT DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 41, line 46, to leave out "of his committing" and to insert:
that as a result of his mental disorder he would commit".
This meets a point which was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I understand that it is also a matter which has been raised by the Royal Medico Psychological Association. It is to ensure that where action is taken the court has regard to the risk of further offences only if that risk arises out of a person's mental condition.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 66.—(REMOVAL TO HOSPITAL OF PERSONS SERVING SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT AND OTHER PRISONERS.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 47, line 35, to leave out "twenty-eight days" and to insert "three months".

The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the time within which a prisoner under sentence who has been transferred to a mental hospital may appeal to the sheriff against that transfer. I do not think that it meets entirely the Amendment to which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) spoke in Committee, but, for the reasons which I gave there, I feel that it is a reasonable compromise.

Miss Herbison: The Amendment certainly does not meet fully the points made by this side of the House in Committee. In discussing this matter in Committee, we on this side realised the very great difficulties which might arise. We are grateful that an attempt at least has been made to do something about this difficult matter.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 47, line 42, to leave out subsection (6) and to insert:
(6) Subsections (2) and (3) of section fifty-one of this Act shall apply to an appeal under the last foregoing subsection in like manner as they apply to an appeal referred to in that section.
The effect of this Amendment is to apply to the court in an appeal against transfer from prison to hospital the same provision about the powers and duties of the sheriff and of the right of an appellant to arrange for his medical examination which apply in appeals against continuation of authority under Clauses 39, 40 and 44.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 69.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO PRISONERS UNDER SENTENCE.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 49, line 44, to leave out "to examine the patient" and to insert:
to obtain from another medical practitioner a report on the condition of the patient in the prescribed form and thereafter to assess the need for the detention of the patient to be continued".
This Amendment, together with that in page 50, line 6, is the counterpart of a number of earlier Amendments which have been well received by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 50, line 6, at end insert:
along with the report first mentioned".—[Tire Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 50, line 6, after "detained" to insert:
and to the Mental Welfare Commission".
This is a consequential Amendment to ensure that copies of the reports in question are sent to the Mental Welfare Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 50, line 12, after "thirty-nine" to insert "and of section fifty-one".
I think that it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if with this Amendment were taken the Amendment in page 50, line 15, which is consequential.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

The Lord Advocate: The purpose of the Amendment is to avoid doubt. The effect of it is that, where a prisoner who has been removed to hospital and has the authority of his detention in hospital extended beyond the end of his sentence appeals to the sheriff, the procedural provisions relating to appeals to sheriffs in Clause 51 apply.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 50, line 15, leave out "that section" and insert "the said section thirty-nine".

In line 29, at end insert:
(8) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 82.—(REMOVAL OF ALIEN PATIENTS.)

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 60, line 28. after "there" to insert:
and the patient desires to be removed".
This Amendment is an improvement which we tried to obtain in Committee. We failed to do so, but I hope that since then, although the Government have not tabled a similar Amendment, they have given further consideration to this matter.
The Clause deals with the removal of alien patients. The Clauses which precede it deal with the removal of patients from Scotland to England or Wales or from England and Wales to Scotland, and so on. In every instance where the removal is within the United Kingdom, a patient is removed from a hospital, say, in Scotland to a hospital in England

only if it is considered to be in his interests. But it is provided in the Bill that, whether it is in the interests of an alien or not, he can be removed from a hospital in our country and returned to his own country.
When this matter was raised on a very similar Amendment in Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that these powers would be used only in rare cases—for instance, when a patient had some irrational objection to repatriation arising out of his mental disorder. Surely, the irrational objection would come because he was mentally ill, and if he is mentally ill and has this irrational objection to being sent out of the hospital in Scotland to a hospital anywhere else in the world, it would almost certainly make his mental illness a much more severe illness.
When we further discussed this, the Joint Under-Secretary gave the reason why the Government were insisting on keeping this Clause as it is in the Bill today. He said that it might be cheaper to send a patient to China rather than keep him in hospital at our expense. In other words, the Government were willing to pay the expense of sending a patient from Scotland to China, if he were a Chinese, rather than keep him in Scotland if his illness was going to last for a considerable time. So that the real objection of the Government in this matter is the financial cost of keeping such a patient in our country.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State at one stage invited me to get up in public and express my view. Here are his words:
I think that she will find that the great majority of people accept my point of view and not her point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th May, 1960, c. 865.]
In other words, the hon. Gentleman was saying that the great majority of the British people would agree with the Joint Under-Secretary that where a man was so mentally ill that he was in a hospital he ought to be sent to China, to Timbuktu or Honolulu or elsewhere.
I do not accept that. I think that the British people have much more humanity than the Joint Under-Secretary gives them credit for, but even if the Joint Under-Secretary is correct, we on this side of the House still believe in this


Amendment. There are some matters concerning moral and Christian obligations which we accept, and on which we think a Government ought to give leadership to the citizens of our country. I know that at Tory Party conferences women get up and criticise what we are spending in our National Health Service on foreigners. I only hope that when these conferences take place in Scotland, the Secretary of State would have the moral courage to say to these people, "This is something that we believe is a moral and Christian duty upon us."
It seems to me that this was one of the most niggling rejections by the Government because of the cost, even putting it at its lowest, for a few rare cases. It will do great damage to the name of Britain. It is no use the Secretary of State saying that other countries do not have reciprocal agreements with us. I have cases of constituents who have become seriously ill abroad, when every penny they have saved had to go to pay for their illness. Many of them have had to get into debt in order to obtain the money to pay for that illness. I think that that is wrong.
I cannot say to those countries, "You must introduce a National Health Service as we have done", but what I can show to those countries by example is what the Health Service means to our people in Britain and to any other alien who is living within our shores. I have always been proud to be able to do that. I hope that the Secretary of State will have given the most serious consideration to this matter, and, for the reasons Which I have adduced, will be ready to accept this Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in this Amendment. When one reads this Clause, one has a feeling that it is very cruel. What does it say? It says that
any patient being an alien who is receiving treatment for mental illness
can be removed to the country from which be came, provided
that proper arrangements have been made for the removal of that patient".
It is not that proper arrangements have been made for the care of the patient, not that the treatment which the patient is undergoing should not be inter

rupted. Neither of these considerations enter into this Clause. All it says is that, provided that arrangements have been made to remove the patient, the Secretary of State shall have the power to remove him. I know that the words proper arrangements "may be more widely interpreted than I interpret them, hut, nevertheless, they are of a character that seems to me to fail completely to offer any safeguards whatever to the patient.
This is a deplorable attitude of mind on the part of the Government. People suffering from mental illness of all kinds will come here in the ordinary course of events.

Miss Herbison: Here we are dealing with aliens, not with anyone from Australia, or elsewhere The Home Secretary has the right to intervene and prevent the entry of anyone whom he thinks is undesirable for any reason, so that we are here dealing with people who have been accepted into this country.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that is the point I am making. They are taken ill here. They have a mental breakdown here. Surely the Government are not so mean in this age of affluence, when the Government are boasting that we have never had it so good, as to say to a poor person who has had such a breakdown, "You must not stay here to be cured; we can give you treatment, we have accommodation, we have wonderful doctors and psychiatrists, but you must not benefit from that."
What an attitude of mind on the part of the Government. They ought to be ashamed of themselves on this matter, or else they should stop shouting about how well off we are. They should make up their minds either that we are well off, and, as such, ought to be in a position to help less fortunate people, or to stop shouting about being well off. They cannot have it both ways.
When I read the Clause, and as I listened to the previous debate, I could not help feeling that this is a very cruel attitude of mind. I do not know what is at the back of it. Is it felt that we are to be flooded by mentally defective aliens? What do the Government expect? I cannot see that this should present a big problem at all. We have


a small number of people who will come within the category of this Clause. Surely, the least we can do is to see that they get the right treatment, and that they are not sent back unless they are fit to be sent back; certainly not that, as this Clause states, they should simply be sent back when
proper arrangements have been made for the removal of the patient.
The right hon. Gentleman, who is a kindly sort, of man, is not proud of the attitude of mind that he wants to send everybody back and does not want these people to benefit from the advice, assistance, help, kindness, care and attention that we can give them. Even if he cannot accept the Amendment, he should look at the wording of the Clause more closely and approach the problem in a much more generous attitude. I am confident that the people would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to do as we suggest than simply to treat this class of visitors to our country in the way set out in the Clause.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I hope that the Secretary of State will say whether he has considered the further point, which has not so far been mentioned, that when aliens come to Britain they frequently come because of the difficulties they have' had in their own countries. If one of them suffers from a mental breakdown, or any kind of mental crisis when he is here, it may well be, in part, the result of the strain which he has undergone and which has led to his leaving his own country and seeking hospitality here as an alien. If such a person is then sent back to his own country, to the very circumstances that may have caused the strain which has been a contributory factor in his breakdown, we should be not only denying the hospitality for which Britain is famous, but we might be doing a great deal of harm.
For that reason alone, it is essential that the Secretary of State should consider this matter again. It is not one which can be considered on a level with the objections to the treatment of foreigners in this country by, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, the women of the right hon. Gentleman's party in conference. It is a far more serious

matter than making sure that a party political point is written into a non-party Bill which deals with highly important matters.

Mr. Hannan: I support the Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, something of the same spirit was embodied in a previous Amendment. I should like the Secretary of State to attempt to answer some of the points which he left unanswered even in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made the charge—I do not recollect that it was answered—that in this Clause for the first time the term "in-patient" is used. Why is it imported into this Clause dealing with aliens? Is it under pressure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said, from the Home Office? Is the influence of the Home Office being imported to ensure that the Bill conforms with aliens order provisions?
In a general spirit, I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter. There have been all sorts of allegations about excess and abuse of the National Health Service. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health dealt effectively with that matter in debate when answering the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). He pointed out that visitors to Britain came mainly to London. Figures supplied by the London Executive Council show that less than one-quarter of the patients in London came from abroad. About 3,000 who came from overseas and who used the Health Service included five nationalities. These, in numerical order, were Australia, the United States, the Irish Republic, South Africa and Canada. Hon. Members will find the details in Volume 567 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 18th March, 1957.
Even on the basis of the figures used on that occasion, it was pointed out that the overall cost to the taxpayer through the Health Service was no more than £150,000 for the whole of Great Britain. Under the Secretary of State's proposal, how much will be saved? Has he any estimate or the cost? What is his justification for his proposals? Approaching the matter in the spirit of the parable of the Good Samaritan, does the right hon. Gentleman want to join the priest


and the Levite who passed by on the other side? I am sure that he does not.
We agree that a number of aliens may want to come here. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that when the port authorities are suspicious, they have the right to ask questions and satisfy themselves? If they are not so satisfied, they can refuse entry. Alternatively, they can warn a person that he will be a private patient. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm this? If I am right, does he not think that he should accept the Amendment? We are not suggesting that we want to invite people suffering from mental disorders to abuse the Health Service. Our proposal is intended for the assistance of somebody who is a visitor to Scotland and who genuinely has a breakdown. Are we to refuse the Service to such a person for a temporary period of two, three or four weeks for him to recover?
I am sure that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment and get away from the niggardly, mean attitude which has been adopted in the Clause.

Mr. Maclay: If our intentions were to behave in the deplorably mean and terrible manner in which hon. Members have described what could happen under the Clause, there would be justification for their attitude. Finance, however, is only one relatively unimportant part of the whole argument.

Miss Herbison: I advise the right hon. Gentleman to read the speeches made by the Joint Under-Secretary on this matter. After reading them, nobody could be under any impression that finance was not the most important element in the decision to make the Clause different.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Lady knows as well as I do that when answering a specific point an argument can develop from which it appears that it was the only argument. I have looked at the debate to which the hon. Lady refers and that is what happened in this case. The question arose because hon. Members opposite argued that the cost was negligible. Such a debate can have a disproportionate effect upon the whole matter. I will explain presently, however, what else is involved.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had read the Clause right through. Perhaps he has discovered—he is still looking at it—that it states:
If it appears to the Secretary of State…that proper arrangements have been made for the removal of that patient to a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands and for his care or treatment there…".
The hon. Member had stopped before he reached the proper meaning of the Clause. That deals with the whole of his speech.
The hon. Member said that we would satisfy ourselves only that proper arrangements had been made for a patient's removal and that we had no care about what would happen when he reached his destination. The Clause deals with both of these aspects. If I have done the hon. Member an injustice I am sorry, though I do not see why I should be.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks beg the whole question of what the words actually mean.

Mr. Maelay: It is one of the extraordinary things about the hon. Member that if he is forced back in argument he always asks, "What do the words mean?" The words are very clear. They are:
…proper arrangements have been made for the removal of that patient…and for his care or treatment there…
What could be clearer and more precise? As to knowing precisely who he was, from what country, who was his doctor and what was his illness, one cannot write all that into an Act of Parliament. It is a waste of time to go on asking what the words mean when they are self-explanatory and as clear as words could be to deal with a point like this.

Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman has made a great deal of the fact that for once my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) failed to notice the words "for his care", and so on. The example given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State was China. What knowledge has the Tory Government of the care and treatment that could be found in China?

Mr. Speaker: I do not succeed in following how that arises on the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: With respect, Sir, this is an argument adduced in justification of the Clause by the Joint Under-Secretary. We never dreamt of China until he mentioned it.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to a debate in another place on another Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. This was in justification of the present Clause without amendment of any kind. That is the point.

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the Clause as unamended, but the advisability of making this Amendment to the Clause. It does not seem to me to involve care or treatment in China except in the most remote form.

Mr. Maclay: I will come nearer home than China.
It may well be important in the patient's own interest that he should go back to his own country to his home and his relatives. The reason why we need these powers is that the patient may be unable to say that he wants to go home—because of his mental state, or he might have a fixation about it. We know that there are people who, suddenly and tragically, get a feeling against their own family, but if they can be reunited with their family that feeling will disappear. One cannot tell—we are dealing here with hypothetical cases.
It would be quite absurd if, when somebody visited Britain on short term, and became mentally ill, and went into hospital but was fit to travel, and his relatives were anxious to get him back and we knew that everything was right for his care and treatment at the other end, we then had to wait until the patient himself was able to say that he was willing to go home.
The arguments against what we are proposing could apply if there were any evidence that we were trying to save money by pushing patients out who were quite unfit to be pushed out of our own hospitals. I understand that these cases are likely to be very exceptional. Even if this provision were not in the Bill it would be still possible, by using other powers, to apply deportation, but that

would be a stigma which we would not wish to impose. It is claimed that the question of expense became a major argument in Committee, but that claim is out of all proportion to the substance.
If we had the inconceivable situation in which people were flooding into Britain in order to be taken into our mental hospitals that argument would make good sense, but I cannot imagine that that would ever become a serious matter. I recommend to the House that it would be most unwise to accept the Amendment. I recognise that the Amendment was put down with the best intention and for very human and humane reasons, but it might work against the best interests of those who would be affected by it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: We are extremely disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's answer. On re-reading the debate in Committee, it is extraordinary to find how the Government side has moved towards our previous Amendment and we on this side of the House in turn have had to take a step back in order to bring the Government to that position. When the right hon. Gentleman reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will see that he has used in argument against this Amendment the very words of our previous Amendment.
The Secretary of State says that there should be a balance of interest and no veto by the patient. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me in Committee, and he asserted that if the Amendment which we then moved were accepted—and not the Amendment which we are now discussing—it would follow that the Secretary of State would not have the power in the last analysis, but, in fact, under our former Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would have had that power. There is an argument which was not dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman which we tried to discuss in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) asked why the word "in-patient" was in the Clause.

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry, I forgot to deal with that point. The point is that if he were an out-patient he would be living in the community and the Clause would not apply. He must be an inpatient.

Dr. Mabon: This is precisely the point that makes this matter so difficult. The definition is a patient who is literally inside the hospital, and that means a voluntary patient or a compulsorily detained patient. As we argued previously, unless we have an Amendment of this kind written into the Clause, when aliens who genuinely go to a local physician seeking advice and treatment and are urged and persuaded to take voluntary treatment and they accept that advice and go into a British hospital, whether it is a National Health Service hospital of a private hospital registered under the Bill, they immediately put themselves in peril of being deported. The Secretary of State may not like that word "deported" in this context, but that is what it would be.
If a person arrives in his country of origin, being dumped there after being put aboard ship, under the direction of one of Her Majesty's Ministers, the question whether he is mentally ill or is socially or politically undesirable is irrelevant. The stigma is there that he has been deported. It is a most cruel circumstance that this person should be immediately classified with all the undesirables who are justly deported.
One point has not been answered. I have discussed this matter with a large number of aliens, particularly in London, and doctors who have many patients of this kind, who are alarmed that this kind of practice will be the consequence under the English Act. They had not realised it before. When we discussed this point in Committee it was discussed only very briefly. Indeed, it has been stumbled on only by virtue of Parliamentary examination. The Government should give more adequate consideration to it. The Secretary of State said that if he did not get his own way in this Clause in relation to the ultimate power—and I do not begrudge him that power, for that is not the argument—he could exercise it in other ways. We do not grudge him doing that, but we resent it being done in this way. We do not see the logic of this.
It seems to me that there must be some other reason than the question of removing the person on grounds of undesirability. Is it really financial? The Secretary of State tried to defend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, but, in fairness to truth, one ought to read the report of the Committee stage. The Joint

Under-Secretary of State was very fair—perhaps too fair, for maybe he gave the game away. He never once adduced any argument other than a financial argument for this. That was fair of him, and I do not object to his doing so.
This will be one of the most expensive Clauses for the Treasury, because it can happen that under reciprocal agreements we shall come off badly. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) pointed out how little money is spent on foreigners under the National Health Service. When the right hon. Gentleman was campaigning in Renfrew-shire in 1950, he said that drugs and appliances were being supplied for patients from abroad at terrible expense and that if his party were returned it would make sure that no foreigners got them free. I am glad that he has been converted to the other point of view now. It would be too expensive to devise a system of discrimination.
We are getting reciprocal agreements for treatment of British people abroad. They include many merchant seamen who may find themselves in an invidious position in foreign ports, needing treatment which they would not have if we had not the kind of National Health Service created in 1948. If we are to make a distinction between patients who are mentally ill and those physically ill, then that must hit our reciprocal arrangements as well. Nobody would dream of deporting a physically ill man because he was physically ill and happened to be an alien. Why should we do so with a patient who is mentally ill?
I have tried to argue the case as best I can. I have put two major arguments. The first was that this is an expensive Clause and an unnecessary one, for the ultimate power exists in other ways. The second was the medical argument that if the Government seek to circumscribe at least compulsorily detained patients, they will be working against doctors who are seeking to persuade people to accept voluntary treatment. The Secretary of State should think again. Perhaps he is unable to accept our Amendment, but he might give an assurance of his willingness to see that in another place an Amendment might be put down in the terms which he seems to have adopted tonight. There would be no difficulty in that.
If the allegations of parsimony against the Government are true, then the Government can still get its parsimonious way with such an Amendment. If they are untrue, I cannot see why the Government are being so sticky about this. If we amend the Clause in a suitable way, it will make the position under this Bill when it becomes an Act much more sensible than the position under the English Act. It will make the argument for reciprocity in other countries much more cogent. It may even lead to amendment of the English Act. Scottish Ministers should be anxious to ensure that we lead the way rather than be dragged behind England.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I have listened carefully to the arguments, but they have gone over the same ground and I cannot see anything new in that. There is no question of using this Clause for powers of deportation in the sense that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) was suggesting. Deportation powers already exist otherwise. One cannot tell clearly the circumstances in which it might be desirable for a patient, in his own interest, to go back to his own country under this Clause and not under any other Clause. It does bring in the whole question of deportation procedure. The hon. Member for Greenock was trying to say that whether it was under this Clause or under different powers it was still deportation. That is not so.
If it is clear that a patient may well benefit, although he does not realise it—as is, alas, so often the case—by being sent back to his own home and surroundings, then there are the strongest reasons for doing so in the easiest and quietest way without going through the procedures of deportation.

Miss Herbison: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is using the words "in the interest of the patient." Those were the words of an Amendment we tried to have accepted in the Committee, but failed. If we could have his promise that in another place such an Amendment would be accepted, then we could end this debate immediately.

Mr. Maclay: I was coming to the point of what is meant by the words

"in the interest of the patient." There is, to begin with, considerable difficulty of definition if we put the words "interest of the patient" into a Statute. It would raise much too difficult a problem in weighing up the balance of the argument as to whether or not the patient should go home. We are dealing with other countries in this matter. It raises the problem of assessment of the stage of development that the patient's country has reached in psychiatric work and the conditions he will be living under.
I put the interest of the patients high in my argument. There are, however, other considerations. It is a fact—and we cannot ignore it if we desire to be humane—that foreigners come here on visits. This will not apply to an accepted resident, and I can assure the House that there will be no conceivable use of this Clause in relation to political refugees. Other powers would be invoked in the case of political refugees.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: It might also be useful to the Government to use this Clause to deport a person to whom they did not wish to give asylum, using this procedure as a rather cute mechanism. All they need is one doctor to say that the man is mentally distressed; they can then persuade him to go to hospital for a few days, and he can be out of the country very shortly afterwards. They can use this social legislation for that purpose.

Mr. Maclay: That is not a sound argument. It is imputing a most subtle and malicious intention. The Clause is in the Bill for a variety of reasons. People come to Britain for a short holiday, with short permits. If they take ill here and need treatment they will not be moved until they are fit to move and it is found to be good to get them back to their families. It may be that they will not be willing to go themselves.
Furthermore, it might be difficult to argue precisely what is in the best interests of the patient if the matter is taken to the court, but it is obvious that such persons should go back, if it is reasonable for them to do so, at the right moment after their permit has expired. It would not be right to ignore the whole of our law in relation to foreigners by putting the argument the


other way round and subtly using this Clause, as amended by hon. Members opposite, as a means of allowing foreigners to get into the country and stay here. I must, therefore, ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I apologise for not being here at the start of this discussion, but I can well remember the long debate that we had on this point in Committee. I do not think that I was ever more ashamed of a Scottish Minister than I was then, because the Joint Under-Secretary proceeded to lecture us on the question of expense and told us how right it would be for the Secretary of State to take compulsory steps to send people back to China. As he was saying that, in walked a delegation from a country east of Calcutta, which had to listen to this exposition of the new Tory philosophy in respect of our international outlook.
The Amendment seeks to provide that we shall take into account the desires of the patient. The Clause assumes that we are moving people against their will. The Secretary of State has said that there are various reasons for this provision. We had many discussions about it in Committee, but only one reason was ever put forward for it—the financial reason. The Secretary of State said that there were various reasons, but tonight he mentioned only two. First, he said that people may come into this country and take ill. Surely the assumption is that in the great majority of cases such patients or their next-of-kin will voluntarily make arrangements for removal.
We are narrowing the matter down to people who, for some reason or other, have no desire to go back to their own country. The Secretary of State says that a person may not be willing to indicate his willingness to go. We concede that, but the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that by using the term "in-patient" rather than "voluntary patient", or "a patient who has been detained in hospital", he is including a person who has been sufficiently of his own mind to sign himself in as a voluntary patient.
That is where the great snag arises. The Joint Under-Secretary told us in Committee that the ball could be started rolling, in respect of a person's compulsory removal from hospital without the knowledge of the patient. The expres

sion "starting the ball rolling" is not mine; we got that phrase from the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee. Does he think that it is right that this action should be taken, possibly without the knowledge of the patient, when the patient may be undesirous of leaving Britain, perhaps for a very good reason?
I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the matter. He said that we are doing all this out of kindness, and that this is a quieter way of proceeding than by using the procedure of deportation. It is just because it is a quieter way that we must look carefully at it. In many cases of this kind the Government might prefer to act quietly rather than use a much more public procedure. The Secretary of State should not blame us for being critical about the matter. We must remember that the words "Secretary of State", as used in the Clause, do not refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland; they refer to the Home Secretary. The expense of the removal of a person to China would fall not on the Scottish Office, but on the Vote of the Home Office. I hope that that information is correct.

Mr. Ede: There can be only one Secretary of State, although he is divided into about six offices. It might be that in the absence of the Home Secretary, owing to illness, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or even the Secretary of State for Air, would sign a deportation order—but the Prime Minister could not sign it.

Mr. Ross: I am glad that we have the expert advice of my right hon. Friend. In Committee, we had to be content with the advice we received from the Joint Under-Secretary.

Mr. Ede: Never believe Joint Under-Secretaries.

Mr. Willis: We do not believe Secretaries of State.

Mr. Ross: Those of us with experience of the Scottish Office under a Tory Government find it difficult to believe anything we hear from these dignified people.
This is a form of deportation. It will normally be carried out on a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, who is answerable to this House in respect of


aliens and their treatment in this country. Surely the Secretary of State appreciates the difficulty which arises in respect of the voluntary patient who, for his own good and that of the community—and on the advice of his doctors—goes into a Scottish mental hospital. Does the right hon. Gentleman still consider it right that that person, who is sufficiently of sound mind to take that step voluntarily, should be compulsorily removed from this country?
The right hon. Gentleman has given us no reason why this should be done. Why does not he revert to the question of the phrase that was turned down in Committee, but which he has constantly used himself, namely, "in the interest of the patient"? Whether he likes it or not, he is tied by certain words. My hon. Friend is quite right to ask for their meaning. The Minister has not merely to be satisfied about care and treatment; he has to be satisfied that it is "proper care and treatment". If the patient is a voluntary patient and has gone into hospital for treatment for mental illness he will probably have a good idea whether the standards of treatment available in his own country are proper or not. He will probably have a far better idea of this than will the Secretary of State.
To my mind, the situation will be that in Scotland the Secretary of State will accept one standard of treatment generally but will reduce that standard in respect of an alien who is compulsorily removed for whatever reason may suit the Secretary of State. I am disappointed in his attitude in this matter. This was the one Clause the discussion of which caused the Joint Under-Secretary to lose his temper. He announced that he would lecture the Committee. It was a sorry lecture, and in the end the hon. Gentleman was sorry that he had used those words.

Mr. Galbraith: I said that I was not going to lecture the Committee.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member probably took great care to remove that word from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but that was what he said.
I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about this matter. We have now reached a very narrow measure of disagreement, which could well be met

by a suitable phrase covering the fears we have expressed. Scotland has a reputation to maintain which means far more than the expenditure of a few thousand pounds, which seemed to worry the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee. This reputation was not created in 1945 or 1951; it goes right back through previous centuries. Surely the Secretary of State will bear in mind the reputation of Scotland in this respect.
One reason why we are so anxious to have our Amendment accepted is that this Clause was lifted straight out of the English Bill. This is not something for which the Scottish draftsmen or officials are responsible; it is the responsibility of the English officials. If English Members are prepared to accept this slur upon our hospitality and our international reputation, Scottish Members on this side of the House are not. I hope that the Secretary of State will join us. He still has time. He can undertake to amend the Clause in another place and can use the time between now and that stage to consider a suitable phrase to add to the Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 86.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO PATIENTS REMOVED FROM SCOTLAND.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 62, line 10, at the end to insert:
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, where he authorises the removal from Scotland of a patient under any of the provisions of this Part of this Act, to send notification of that authorisation to the Mental Welfare Commission and to the nearest relative of the patient not less than seven days before the date of the removal of the patient.
The effect of the Amendment is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shall notify both the patient's nearest relative and the Mental Welfare Commission when he authorises the removal of a patient from Scotland under any of the provisions of Part VI. The notification is to be given not less than seven days before the date of the removal of the patient. This meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 87.—(INTIMATION OF REMOVAL OF PATIENTS TO SCOTLAND.)

Amendment made: In page 62, line 29, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 92.—(POWERS OF BOARD OF MAN AGEMENT IN RELATION TO PROPERTY OF PATIENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 64, line 46, leave out "Board" and insert "Commission".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 65, line 4, at the end to insert:
and in the exercise of the powers conferred by this subsection it shall be the duty of a board of management to have regard to the sentimental value that any article may have for the patient, or would have but for his mental disorder".
This Amendment requires the board of management, which proposes to dispose of any article belonging to a patient who is incapable of acting for himself, to have regard to the sentimental value which the article may have for the patient. The Amendment meets a point which was raised in Committee by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and her hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). It is a small point, but it could be quite important.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 103.—(ENTRY ON PREMISES AND WARRANT TO SEARCH FOR AND REMOVE PATIENTS.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 71, line 32, to leave out "a police station".
This Amendment, together with the next Amendment in line 35, ensures that a police station shall be used only as a last resort as a place of safety. It meets a point raised during the Committee stage discussions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 71, line 35, at end insert:
but shall not include a police station unless by reason of emergency there is no place as aforesaid available for receiving the patient."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 104.—(MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSONS FOUND IN PUBLIC PLACES.)

Amendment made: In page 72, line 5, at end insert:
(3) Where a patient is removed as aforesaid it shall, where practicable, be the duty of the constable who has so removed him without delay to inform some responsible person residing with the patient and the nearest relative of the patient of that removal.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF PART IV TO PATIENTS ADMITTED TO HOS PITAL OR PLACED UNDER GUARDIAN SHIP UNDER PART V.)

Amendments made: In page 80, column 2, entry relating to section 29, leave out "(5)" and insert "(6)".
In column 3, entry relating to section 29, leave out "(5)" and insert "(6)".—[The Lord Advocate.]

Third Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS:

PART I—PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART II.

PART II—PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART III.

PART III—PROVISIONS RELATING TO PARTS IV AND V.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 89, line 4, to leave out from "but" to end of line 6 and to insert:
not more than once during each period of twelve months after the expiration of the initial period the nearest relative may appeal to the sheriff to discharge the patient.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of section fifty-one of this Act shall apply to an appeal under the last foregoing sub-paragraph in like manner as they apply to an appeal referred to in that section".
This is a drafting Amendment. It slightly amends the wording. though not the sense, of the Opposition Amendment which was accepted in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSE QUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 93, line 35, at end to add:

The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854 (17 &amp; 18 Vict. c. 80)

In section seventy-six, in the definition of "occupier" the words "lunatic asylum" shall be omitted.

This Amendment deletes the obsolete term "lunatic asylum". No substitute is necessary as the word "hospital" covers hospitals providing treatment for persons suffering from mental disorder.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 95, line 18, at end insert:
In section three, for the words "General Board of Control" there shall be substituted the words "Mental Welfare Commission".


The effect of this Amendment is to make it the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission to take over what were previously the duties of the General Board of Control in divorce cases on the grounds of incurable insanity.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 97, line 3 leave out "as it applies to Scotland".
This Amendment should be read with the next Amendment. The effect is to apply the Amendment of the Recall of Army and Air Force Pensioners Act to England and Wales as well as to Scotland. The Fifth Schedule to the Bill repeals the Amendment to the Act made by the Mental Health Act, 1959 for England and Wales only.
The Recall of Army and Air Force Pensioners Act, 1948, makes provision for the recall for service of Army and Air Force pensioners. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Act exempts certain classes of mentally disordered persons from liability for recall. As originally enacted, the Schedule in error identified these persons only by reference to the English statutory provisions. The Bill, as now amended, replaces this by reference to the new English and Scottish legislation.
The next Amendment also has the effect of excluding from the exemption from recall patients receiving treatment in a private hospital, unless they are receiving it at the expense of a regional hospital board. The reason is to prevent the possibility of anyone evading recall to service by arranging to receive, at his own expense, treatment which he does not really need.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 97, line 6, after "meaning", insert
of the Mental Health Act, 1959, or in a hospital (other than a private hospital) within the meaning".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Mr. Ross: One question immediately arises in my mind. The Joint Under-Secretary spoke in Committee about this being applied to people who went into a private hospital though they did not need treatment for mental illness. What happens if they go in because they do need treatment?

Mr. Galbraith: If they did need treatment they would not automatically be given exemption which they would be given if they were in a State hospital. Doctors would have to certify and prove that they were really ill. In a State hospital that would not be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 100, line 30, at end insert:
In the Seventh Schedule, in Part II, in the amendments to the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955, there shall be inserted after the word "Wales" the words "and Scotland"—[Mr. Galbraith.]

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I wish to say straight away how grateful I am for the immense amount of work which has been done on this Bill, not only by hon. Members but by people outside the House who took a great deal of interest in the Measure many months before it reached the Floor of the House. It is an important Bill to the future of this part of our social life in Scotland. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the detailed painstaking and unrelenting work which they have carried on for many weeks in connection with this Bill.
Fundamentally, the Bill we have today is that which this House sent to the Standing Committee. It is clear that its general structure has met with warm and wide approval. A number of the features to which I drew attention at an earlier stage have been retained without question. For example, the fundamental principle of having for Scotland an independent body to protect the person and property of mentally disordered persons and the retention of the sheriff in the procedures for the use of compulsion have been fully endorsed.
Nevertheless, a lot of hard work has been done on the Bill and it emerges, as I say with gratitude, with numerous improvements. I said that the independent central body has not been questioned, but hon. Members have shown a great deal of interest in its name, its precise constitution and functions, and we have been able to make changes in the light of these deliberations to the general improvement of the Bill. We have provided for a medical review and report


on each patient before he can be kept subject to compulsion for more than twenty-eight days. We have also strengthened the periodic review of patients subject to compulsion by introducing a second medical opinion. In each of these changes and in other points of detail everything that has been done as the Bill has passed through the House has been aimed at protecting still further the interests and wellbeing of the mentally disordered.
Hon. Members showed some anxiety about the development of the community services which the Bill is designed to facilitate. There has been no difference of opinion about what is the desirable object here, but we have not all been agreed on the best moans of achieving it. The Bill employs the machinery of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, and I think it may assist the House if I show how that machinery, supplemented by the provisions in Clause 7 of the Bill, will enable us to bring about in as good time as possible the developments which we should all like to see.
Hon. Members will have noted that Clause 117 of the Bill makes a special reference to the power to give directions under Section 27 of the 1947 Act for defining the duties of local health authorities, enabling that power to be exercised at any time after the Bill is passed. As soon as possible after the Bill is passed, therefore, I propose to direct local health authorities to make arrangements to provide services for the prevention of mental disorder and the care and after-care of persons who are or have been suffering from mental disorder.
I propose that this direction will be in general terms. During the Committee stage reference was made to our intention to ask the Scottish Health Services Council to advise on this matter. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Council's Standing Advisory Committee on Local Authority Services already has before it, and has begun work on, a remit on this subject. It is due to meet again tomorrow. The Committee has had impressed upon it the importance we attach to having early advice on the kind of arrangements which local authorities should make with a particular emphasis on the things that can be done quickly.
As soon as this advice is available local health authorities will be told what

matters to cover in their proposals. Once this has been done I should expect, subject to consultation with the local authority associations, that the authories' proposals could be submitted to me within six months. I am quite clear that by proceeding in this way we shall be enabled to get appropriate detailed advice on what is practicable, and to secure the flexibility that is essential, without any risk of any local authority falling short of its proper responsibility.
During the consideration of the Bill in Committee great interest was shown in the arrangements by which at present I am advised of the discharge of patients who have been ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure—a phrase which I hope will disappear in the future. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate explained to the Committee haw some of these patients were in State hospitals, some in ordinary mental hospitals, and some on conditional liberation in the community. The Bill provides for the appointment of a committee to manage the State hospitals on my behalf. These State hospitals, as Clause 89 provides, are to be for persons who require treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities.
The committee which I propose to appoint to manage the State hospitals will be directly responsible to me and will not be part of the regional hospital arrangements. It will be so constituted as to include a very strong psychiatric element. As I envisage the committee at the moment, it will consist of a chairman, three consultant psychiatrists of standing, of whom one will, I hope, be of senior university status, a lawyer, and someone with local authority experience. If none of these persons is a woman, I propose to add one to the committee. I shall lean heavily on the committee for regular review of all the patients who are or have been in the State hospitals, since continuity of knowledge of these patients is important.
I hope that what I have said on the standing of the medical people whom I propose to put on the committee will assure the House that there is no need to look elsewhere for my main advice on these matters. I know that my predecessors in this office who have had to apply


their minds to some of the very agonising and difficult decisions which arise in these cases will agree that we have done everything we can to obtain the best possible procedure. It is a part of my duties which weighs most heavily on my mind and conscience as a Minister.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the management of the State hospitals? Is it correct to state, particularly in view of what was said earlier about the commissioners, that no member of the State Hospital Board which he is thinking of appointing will also be on the Mental Welfare Commission?

Mr. Maclay: This is too early a stage to commit myself, but I cannot imagine that that is so. If I am wrong in that, my hon. Friend will correct me when winding up the debate.
The Bill is designed to encourage still further voluntary treatment of mental illness and in doing this may well speed up an interesting recent trend in the population of our mental hospitals. While admissions to and discharges from these hospitals have greatly increased, the period of stay in hospital has been so reduced that the total number of patients resident is tending to decline, after having remained fairly constant for many years. Partly because of this, we have not the same pressing need for additional mental hospital accommodation as we have for accommodation for certain classes of mentally defective patients. We are more concerned with improving the quality of accommodation, and with providing some new types of specialised units which developments in psychiatry require, than in increasing the total number of places.
A major difficulty in expansion of the resources, on which successful fulfilment of the aims of the Bill will depend, will be the rapid expansion of the number of skilled workers of all kinds in this field. I sincerely hope that more of our younger doctors will be attracted to psychiatry, for it must be clear that this is a lively and rapidly developing specialty in which there is ample opportunity for good men and good women. It may interest the House to know that my Department has arrangements in hand for meetings to be held in the autumn with the consultant psychiatrists

in Scotland to discuss present trends and the best ways of making use of our medical resources.
But medical personnel alone is not enough. We clearly need more social workers in this field and the devotion of more time by skilled members of the Medical Officer of Health's team if we are to have the improvements we want. We have this need constantly in mind in our consideration of the Young-husband Report, with its recommendations for the training of social workers and the structure of local authorities' health and welfare staffs.
The Bill may be said, I think, to have three main aspects. It encourages the voluntary treatment of mental illness and the development of community services. It encourages the use by the courts of the contribution which the mental health services can make to the regeneration of those who have fallen foul of the law—a contribution which it is possible to exaggerate but which is nevertheless of great importance. Thirdly. it provides a code for the protection of the mentally disordered against unnecessary detention and restriction and against exploitation. Each of these matters is important, and I commend the Bill to the House as a proper instrument for achieving what is best in each of them.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not sit through the Third Reading debate. I do not know how long it will last. I have been confined to barracks, as it were, the whole day since 10.15 a.m. and there is a weight of work and a certain feeling that I must get on with it.

Mr. J. C. Forman: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with a question which I raised in Committee? I asked about the standard of guardianship, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave an undertaking that the Secretary of State would introduce regulations governing the standard of guardianship. Does he still intend to frame such regulations?

Mr. Maclay: May I leave that question to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who will make a short speech in winding up the debate? He will deal with that point.

Mr. Dempsey: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves, will he give us some more information about the circumstances of the local authorities? He proposes to direct them to submit to his Department schemes in connection with the Bill when it becomes an Act. He will appreciate that he is imposing a formidable financial burden upon local authorities by asking them to undertake their share of the responsibility. Will he give the House an undertaking that, once he has approved these schemes, there will be no niggling about the financial contributions and that provision will be included in the local authorities' allocation of the block grant?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot give assurances about sums of money in detail, but I can give an assurance that this matter will be taken into full consideration under the terms of the Act under which the block grant is payable. There is no doubt that it will be dealt with.

8.27 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: We have reached the Third Reading of the Bill, but before I begin to deal with the issues which I should like to raise I must say that all of us have the greatest admiration for the Chairman of our Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who, in spite of great physical difficulties, travelled from Edinburgh to London so that we might finish the last day of the Committee stage. I think that as a result of that he spent a fortnight in hospital in Edinburgh. We owe him a very great debt of gratitude for what he did.
From the beginning, we on this side of the House have at no time regarded the Bill as a party Measure. I wish that hon. Members opposite had taken the same attitude. This is an important human and social Measure. It seems to me that more thought and study should have been given to it by back bench Members on the Government side. With the exception of three hon. Members—the hon. Members for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts)—little or no interest was evinced during the 19 meetings of the Committee by Scottish Members on the Government side.
If Scottish Tories evinced little interest in this great human and social Measure, what about the Leader of the Liberal Party? He is the only Liberal who represents a Scottish constituency. He made no contribution on Second Reading. Had he wanted, he could have been on the Committee. We have not seen pelt or hair of him this afternoon—and this is a Bill which to a great extent deals with the liberty of the individual, of which the Liberals talk so much.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State carried the burden of the Bill from his side of the Committee, and he proved both co-operative and helpful in Committee. Many Amendments were accepted there. The Report stage today has been taken up mainly with Government Amendments to meet points which were raised by the Opposition in Committee. I have no criticism to make of the Minister in his attitude to the Bill. Indeed, on Second Reading the Secretary of State said that he would welcome criticism and would consider any suggestions. The Joint Under-Secretary, who has carried this Bill through, certainly honoured those words of the Secretary of State.
I think that it is a much improved Bill. It is certainly true that the main trends are the same as when the Bill first appeared before us, but it seems to me that by this time it is much improved. There are greater safeguards provided to ensure the liberty of the mentally ill and to ensure their welfare generally.
On the question of finance to local authorities, we have failed to move the Government at all. On the question of ensuring that this duty would be made mandatory on local authorities, we have again failed to move the Government. On those vital matters where our political ideologies are poles apart, we have made no impact whatever on the Government.
The vision which was shown so clearly by the Royal Commission will become a reality, it seems to us on this side of the House, only if the local authorities are given the financial aid which they must have. The Royal Commission, in most of its recommendations, emphasised the need for a trend away from institutional care and placed the emphasis on care in the community.
Under the Bill, local authorities will be asked to provide residential homes


and hostels. These residential homes and hostels will need men and women to staff them. Local authorities will be expected to employ psychiatric social workers and other social workers. These workers are needed if we really believe in attempting to fit the mentally ill into the community again. I am sure it was the desire of the Royal Commission that as many people as possible who became mentally ill should be fitted once again into their own community.
When the Royal Commission made its recommendations, it was very conscious of the great financial burden which would be placed on the local authorities. Because of that, it asked that for a certain number of years a high percentage of the cost of these provisions should be borne by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government have not accepted this suggestion. They have not accepted the case which we tried to make on Second Reading and in Committee on Clause 7. In those instances, we received no support from Government back benchers in our fight to ensure that local authorities should have the financial aid that was necessary.
Some local authorities in our country have always been dilatory in providing social and health facilities. They will have no incentive under the block grant system of showing the enthusiasm and the urge which we on this side of the House would like them to show. The picture is even worse. There are other local authorities in Scotland which have been always ready to meet the obligations placed on them. Even these progressive local authorities will find it very difficult under the financial provisions of the Bill, which are contained in the block grant legislation, to do what the Royal Commission wished them to do.
The Government have a substantial responsibility under this great human social Measure. I want at this stage to warn the Secretary of State that we on this side will be most vigilant. We shall constantly remind the Government of their responsibilities about mental health. We shall constantly draw to their attention the need for greater financial assistance to local authorities if they are to provide the facilities which the Bill asks them to provide.
The Bill is merely a blueprint. It does nothing to solve the difficulties.

An immense task lies ahead—a task for the Government, the local authorities, the doctors and nurses, and indeed for all who play any part in Scotland in the treatment of the mentally ill.
I have the greatest admiration for the doctors and nurses who devote their lives to this work. For about two months I was a nurse in a mental hospital in Edinburgh. I found it a very useful experience, but I realised in those two months that I could not possibly make it my life's work. Because of that experience and the experience I have had since from visiting hospitals where mentally ill people are treated, my admiration of those who do this work has been greatly strengthened.
The problems are very great indeed, and they will be solved only by a concerted effort by the Government, local authorities, and the staffs of these hospitals. In moving the Third Reading, the Secretary of State said that we are not so short of buildings for the mentally ill, but there is still a shortage for the mentally defective. We could do with more modern buildings than some of the ones we have in Scotland for the mentally ill. Therefore, for the mentally ill, and especially for the mentally defective, there is a need for accommodation.
The Secretary of State will agree with me that there is a need for increased staff at every level if there is to be the kind of mental health service that the Bill envisages and the Royal Commission wanted. I want to deal shortly with two categories of staff which are required. I shall deal first with occupational therapists. No one can possibly deny the value of occupational therapeutic treatment for the mentally ill. The latest figures which I can obtain reveal that there are almost 21,000 mentally ill people in hospitals in Scotland. There are over 6,000 mentally defective and in institutions. That is a total figure of roughly 27,000.
Some weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State how many fully qualified occupational therapists there were in Scottish hospitals. His answer was 47 full-time and one part-time. If these were divided equally over the patients in the hospitals, there would be one fully qualified occupational therapist to every 562 patients. That is very wrong. They are not equally


divided. There is not one fully qualified occupational therapist in the largest hospital in Scotland, which is in my constituency.
The Secretary of State told me that the Western Regional Hospital Board had been asked by him to make plans for a training school for occupational therapists in the West of Scotland. Has he these plans before him? I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State when winding up will be able to give me the latest information. I understand that any man who wants to be an occupational therapist in Scotland has to go to England for the training.
I want to turn to another type of worker Who will be most necessary if we are to get the mental health service we desire. Two Reports have been published on the recruitment and training of personnel for the mental health services, parts of them dealing with other matters. We had the Mackintosh Report in June, 1951, and last year the Younghusband Report was published. In spite of questions, the Government have refused to make any pronouncement on the value of the recommendations of the Younghusband Report. In paragraph 1129 of that Report we find these words:
We are greatly concerned that, under the new system".—
that is, the block grant;
individual authorities may not have the same incentive as previously to undertake and finance a programme of training, and of improvement and expansion in a series of services.
That is the fear of the experts, but whether it is the humble folk of the Opposition who make the case or the experts chosen by the Government, the Government have decided to turn a blind eye to all of them and to go on their own way.
The Younghusband Report recommended a National Council for Social Work Training, and very strongly recommended that it should be set up as soon as possible. If there is a continuation of this great dearth of psychiatric social workers it will nullify the provisions of this Bill. so much of which depends on community care outside hospitals.
Edinburgh is the only one of the four Scottish universities that provides a course of study for psychiatric social workers. We know that these univer

sities are autonomous bodies, but the whole bulk of the finance comes from the Government sources, either in grants to the universities or grants to the students. Surely, the Secretary of State could influence the other universities to provide comparable courses for the other parts of Scotland.
The Younghusband Committee said:
Seven years later we can but echo many of the findings of the Mackintosh Committee. There is still a large unfulfilled demand for social workers in the mental health services. Psychiatric social workers are still a mere handful in relation to demand, and there is still no training for other mental health workers.
As the Mackintosh Report has been in the hands of the Government for nine years, those words really are a damning indictment of the Government, which have been shilly-shallying since 1951.
This attitude does not augur well for the future—but perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will be ready tonight to make some announcement of the Government's decision on the Younghusband Report. He moves his head as if to say, "No", but if he is really serious about what this blueprint can do—or, to put it another way, what this "skeleton" Bill could do if given the flesh—and part of the flesh would be the provision of psychiatric social workers—he would be urging the Government to pronounce on the Younghusband Report.
This Bill has encouraged people in Scotland to hope for a much better mental health service. I have been asked about it in a number of areas. This Measure has certainly interested more people in the subject than were interested in it before. If those hopes are to be realised, we shall need a far greater drive and much more energy from the Government than they have so far shown in the treatment of these various Reports. If we want to strengthen and keep alive in those who are working in our Scottish mental health services their enthusiasm for what might come as a result of the Bill, it can come only from drive and energy on the part of the Government.
A word now about research. Last week, I visited a hospital where I spoke to a biochemist who is doing important research on schizophrenia. Of course, a great many of our mentally ill people suffer from illness of that nature. He


said that the answer one always has from the Government, that finance is not the hindrance to research, is quite wrong. This is a man who is in research. I ask Ministers to listen carefully because, time after time, the excuse is trotted out that it is not finance but personnel which is the hindrance. Yet here is a man doing important biochemical research which will have a bearing on the treatment of the mentally ill who is quite convinced that it is finance which in some instances hinders important research work which might be done.
I hope that the Government will, when the Bill reaches the Statute Book, use all their energy in getting local authorities to provide community care. I hope that they will give every financial assistance to local authorities. As I said, we shall be vigilant. We welcomed the Bill when it came before us. We think now that it is a better Bill and, as I said before, we thank the Joint Under-Secretary for his great help. I hope that it will mark the beginning of a real chance not only for the mentally ill but for their relatives, too, to know that something vitally important is to be done for them, to bring them hope, to bring them cure and to bring them happiness.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I shall be very brief, because so many words have been said already on the Bill that there seems to be little left to say in the House about it.
I am sure that the Bill brings a sense of accomplishment to a great many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. It must give a great feeling of accomplishment to the Secretary of State. He produced the Bill. It has been his "baby". It must give a great feeling of satisfaction to the Joint Under-Secretary of State who shepherded the Bill through 19 meetings of the Committee.
Apart from a sense of accomplishment, it has given a great many of us, I believe, a feeling of relief after devoting much time and work to the Bill. It is not the sort of Bill which hits the headlines, but it is a most important one because it is, in effect, a new charter for an unfortunate section of our people

who particularly need help. Through the Bill, we have been able to do something to help them, to give them new hope and, as the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, to give their friends and relations new hope.
In my researches into the subject, I have seen clear results of the new thinking on mental health. There is now a new hope. We are moving away from the old ideas about treatment and, as I say, with the new thinking, a new charter has been prepared. I am convinced that all the work we have put into the Bill has been well worth while.

Mr. Ross: What work?

Mr. Hendry: I think that the hon. Gentleman himself did a good deal of work. I contributed in my small way to the work of the Committee. As a new Member, I did my best. I assure the hon. Member and the hon. Lady who was, I thought, a little unfair to back benchers on this side of the House in their contributions—

Miss Herbison: I said that there were three honourable exceptions, and I said that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was one of them. I know that he worked on it. I saw him doing it.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. I was thinking in rather wider terms. Although only three back bench Members on this side contributed to the debates in the Committee, there was a great deal of discussion among back bench Members themselves to decide how we could help to improve the Bill. It is probably a very good thing that more of us did not speak; otherwise, instead of having 19 meetings we might have had 25 meetings of the Committee.

Mr. Ross: It is very interesting to learn that hon. Members opposite had these back bench discussions and all the rest. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not a single Amendment was put down by his back bench hon. Friends and not a single idea was contributed for the improvement of the Bill he is now proclaiming on Third Reading?

Mr. Hendry: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to


interpolate in that way. I was about to say that the Bill has given me a great deal of personal satisfaction, because it showed me something which I did not believe possible before I took part in the work upon it, namely, that Members of the House of Commons and its Committees could get together in a non-political spirit to try to improve the law in a Bill presented to us. That is what happened.
The Bill has given me a great deal of personal satisfaction, because I had the privilege of making my maiden speech on it. That very fact gave me, as it were, a proprietary interest in it and, by the time we had gone through about 10 meetings of the Committee, I felt that the Bill had acquired a proprietary interest in me. The Committee stage afforded evidence of genuine endeavour on both sides to improve the Bill. There was a great deal of earnest and sincere discussion. There was practically no political argument and I think that all of us on both sides were trying to achieve perfection. It is possible that in some cases we tried too hard to achieve perfection, and there were times when we could not agree about various things. But I feel that the opposition, whether it came from the other side of the Committee or from the Government back benches, was designed to try to improve the Bill.
I feel that the Bill has, to a large extent, been improved. A great many things have been added to it to improve it. I should like to remind hon. Members opposite of an Amendment achieved by one of the despised added Englishmen, namely, the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts). I need not remind the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North that the hon. Member for Moss Side was, I think, responsible, along with various hon. Members on this side, for adding a woman to the Commission. I do not think that we should forget that.

Miss Herbison: It was our Amendment.

Mr. Hendry: I agree that it was an Opposition Amendment, but it was supported from this side. Without that assistance, I do not think that it would have come about.

Miss Herbison: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my speech. I was very careful to pick out the hon.

Members for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts), Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and Aberdeenshire, West. I always try to be fair in these matters.

Mr. Hendry: I agree very much with what the hon. Lady says, but I have been trying to underline the fact that there was a tremendous amount of friendly feeling in the Committee on the Bill.
I propose to finish what I have to say about what happened in Committee by underlining the generosity of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State who accepted so many Amendments in a friendly spirit with the one and only purpose of trying to improve the Bill. We all ought to be grateful to him for the generosity which he displayed in accepting those Amendments and for producing so many Amendments today on Report.
Before I stop paying compliments, I think that every hon. Member present would wish to pay a very great tribute to the tremendous amount of work put into the Bill by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North. She could be seen day after day and night after night sitting in the Library working on the Bill. She has contributed a tremendous amount to the Bill, and we all ought to be grateful to her.
I think that we have achieved a good Bill. Possibly it is not a perfect Bill, but it seems to me that, in a matter of this sort, perfection is never possible. For one thing, we can never all agree on what is perfection. We have all striven hard to make the Bill as perfect as we could and I think that we ought to wait and see how the Bill works. There is a lot to do in a matter of this kind which cannot be done by legislation.
It seems to me that the first thing that all of us on both sides have to do is to educate the public on the subject of mental health. A stigma has always been attached to the mentally ill, and that stigma must go. There is the possibility under the Bill of people who are mentally ill being treated in hospital as ordinary human beings. The Bill makes it possible to make a tremendous addition to the total sum of human happiness in Scotland. I feel that we ought to do everything we can among those upon whom we have influence to get rid of the stigma against mental health. A lead


has been given by the Government which has to be followed by many people, the first being members of hospital boards.
I am not satisfied that hospital boards dealing with mental illness appreciate what can be done. We all have influence with hospital boards, and I hope that each one of us will use his or her influence with them to make sure that they appreciate what can be done. As the hon. Lady said, a tremendous lot depends on the local authorities, and each and every one of us has influence with his or her local authority, and I hope that we shall use it.
The hon. Lady also said that the local authorities may be disheartened because of the financial provisions, or lack of financial provisions, in the Bill. We ought to remember what the Secretary of State said in his final speech, namely, that although he cannot give an exact figure in pounds, shillings and pence, the financial assistance will be given under the Acts which already exist. I believe that, having produced this Bill, we can rely on the Secretary of State to make sure that it will work and will not suffer from the lack of pounds, shillings and pence in the hands of the local authorities.
In any case, quite apart from finance, the local authorities must be educated in this way, and I think that each one of us can do a tremendous amount to educate our local authorities. But we have got to go further than that. Much should be done to educate the friends of the patients and the general public. The hon. Lady said that a great deal of interest—a surprising amount of interest—had been shown in Scotland in the Bill, and I hope that that will continue, and that it will not be interfered with by any discordant talk in the House at the final stage of the Bill.
We have to use our influence to educate two other important groups of people in this new attitude towards mental health. The first group consists of the doctors themselves. To a very large extent, I think that the doctors still look upon mental health and the treatment of mental illness as something not quite up to the mark in the medical profession. The psychiatrists and the doctors working in mental health must have their status improved, but whatever

I say about the doctors I must repeat ten times about nurses. The nurses in mental hospitals are, and always have been, the poor relations of the nursing profession, and everything must be done to secure that the status of these mental nurses is improved. The same thing applies to social workers. We can get plenty of social workers in other hospitals, but the medical profession and the hospital boards must appreciate the necessity of getting more and more social workers into these mental hospitals. The local authorities have a great part to play in this, too.
I do not want to say much about Part II of the Bill—the unpleasant part which deals with those people who must be kept under restraint. A great deal of discussion has taken place on that already, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has achieved a very delicate and very even balance between the safety of the public, who must be protected, and the liberty of those unfortunate people who must occasionally be deprived of their liberty. In Committee and in the House, everything that can be done has been done to make the Bill a success, and we ought to send it on its way to another place with our blessing.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: We have just listened to a rather remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). I should have thought that the number of times on which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has had to get up today and repeat the statement that the Government were making the Amendment because of suggestions made by the Opposition in Committee was proof positive of the source of the improvements in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) rightly paid tribute to and mentioned the three hon. Members opposite, but, as my hon. Friend has remarked, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has said more tonight in his speech than those three hon. Members did in Committee.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Or the whole Tory Party.

Mr. Hannan: The answer is that, as the Joint Under-Secretary knows, back benchers did not take part in the Committee proceedings because the Whips


were on, and because the more they spoke the greater would have been the length of time that would have been taken. Do not let anyone be hypocritical about it and, in the dying stages of the Bill, try to gain credit from the efforts of a lively Opposition. The hon. Member said that he would have to educate the local authorities, but it is rather the other way round in Scotland, at least, in regard to some of the local authorities. It is they who have had to teach the Government in respect of these services.
I have been provoked to speak longer than I intended, but I, too, want to pay tribute to the Joint Under-Secretary of State despite on occasion in Committee his moments of petulance when he said that he had had enough. At least we were getting to the stage when nerves were beginning to be frayed. The hon. Gentleman was courteous and has shown himself amenable to many of the good suggestions which came from this side of the Committee. Of course, my hon. Friends have worked hard.
One hon. Member spoke earlier about the great and abounding love of people who indulge in this work, and they must be referred to once again. Many of these people, it was said, are inarticulate. I have a school for deaf children in my constituency. There, too, one can see signs of the same sort of abounding affection among the teachers, the nurses and those who care for them. One can see them feeling it when they want to express themselves but are unable to do so. These people give devoted service and are dedicated to their calling. It is certainly not their wages or salaries which encourage them to go on.
In the Bill, we are encouraging people to become voluntary patients and to enter by their own action and seek treatment in that way. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West was quite right in saying that we are passing away from the old days of the institution and the like. Epileptics, the aged and people who suffered from mental disorders have been shut away in institutions. Now the progressive tendency is that they should have community care. At one time even minors were segregated from the community and sent out to isolated places to stay and for that

reason were kept away from the rest of the community.
I wish to put one point to the Joint Under-Secretary who, I hope, will be able to confirm my impression concerning Clause 7 which deals with local authorities. Can he confirm that that Clause, react in conjunction with Section 27 (2) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, provides that while a local authority establishes, equips and maintains residential accommodation and care for persons, it can recover a charge from people who are in receipt, for example, of National Assistance.
Such people pay £2 to the local authority and receive back 10s. This is by way of encouraging them psychologically to believe that they are independent and are paying at least part of their way. Many old people cannot understand the situation or why they should be asked for money. Will this practice continue under Clause 7? Will a local authority be able to receive the £2 from the National Assistance and refund the 10s. to the old people? I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will confirm my impression. It was on this account that we were uncertain in Committee whether to move an Amendment. If I am wrong I shall be glad if the Joint Under-Secretary will inquire whether under its provisions the National Assistance Board can co-operate with the local authority in continuing the present practice.
I wish the Bill well on its journey. I hope that it will receive due consideration in another place and that we shall receive further suggestions from noble Lords. All of us on this side of the House welcomed the Bill in the first place. We still think that it is a charter and that it will go a long way for many years in setting a new pattern for the treatment of mental illness in modern conditions.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I wish to associate myself with the tributes paid to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) for all the work that she has done on the Bill and also to pay tribute to the work of many of her hon. Friends. It is significant that this year, which is Mental Health Year, is that in which we have a new Mental Health Bill for Scotland. It is not always appreciated what a large


number of people in Scotland are involved in this matter of the treatment of mental health and how many beds are occupied by the mentally ill. I very much welcome the system whereby patients can enter mental institutions voluntarily without having to sign any certificate or being afterwards detained compulsorily. I believe that already the percentage of those entering voluntarily is reaching 80 per cent.
We must do all we can to remove fear from this branch of medicine and, as far as possible, to assimilate mental health with physical health, because the sooner the mentally ill patient is out and earning his own living the better for the country. A quick turnover also helps the patient to fit himself once again into his home environment. I am glad to say that the mental institution which deals with patients in my part of the country has now reached a turnover of nearly 100 per cent. every year of the patients attending institutions.
I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about recruiting more doctors. It seems that glamour really attaches to the curing of the mentally ill. I hope that we shall remember also those who are in the silent world of the mentally deficient, and the devotion of nurses, doctors and guardians who look after people who are in this condition. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about after-care clinics and the local authorities. A great deal can be done by the leagues of friends of the various mental institutions to bring normal life to the patients and to provide the little comforts which help them so much during their stay in the institutions. I give a very great welcome to the Bill.

9.14 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There is much with which I agree in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), and particularly in his concluding comments about leagues of friends. A great deal of lay work is done on a voluntary basis for what he called the silent world of the mentally deficient. One reason why work among the mentally deficient is not as popular or as attractive as it might be to doctors is that it is so bereft of sufficient financial aid for its development.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was speaking about biochemists and the need for more research, I was reminded of the time when the theory was put about that, to a large extent, some forms of mental deficiency were due to deficiencies of very minute quantities of various biochemicals, and if we could only discover what the nature of these were, and what their particular forms of construction were, we could actually induce a drug cure for certain forms. That is, perhaps, still in the rarified world of medical speculation. I believe that money should be spent prodigiously and even extravagantly to find out these things.
The drug largactil, often employed in some cases of senile dementia, was often doubted in the initial stages. It was only by adequate research that it was proved to be of such value. It is now used extensively. It and its allied drugs means that the chains and locks need no longer be on lunatic asylum doors.
This Bill just catches up with medical practice. There is a dreaful history of delay which goes back to before the Second World War. A Committee reported in 1946 and, for the good reasons which I explained on Second Reading, it was then obviously not the time to prepare a mental health Bill. The subject therefore languished, in Scotland at least, until the last part of 1957. It has taken all this time finally to get it into shape. We are very glad of this Bill and the Opposition have given it every facility—that cannot be denied.
Members opposite have been kind in their remarks, but not as gracious as I thought would have been. I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire West (Mr. Hendry) has had his faith in Parliamentary democracy restored, and reaslises that we are not ogres on this side of the House and are willing to be helpful. I am glad he realises that a democracy is a good place to live in.
I was surprised by one or two other comments that he made, but I stick to my essential point, which is that we should not be too congratulatory about the Bill. It took a long time. It is better than it was at Second Reading, because the Government have thought about it and have listened to some of the arguments. I would not claim, as apparently do the majority of back


bench Conservative Members, infallibility, nor do I believe that the Government or any Government can be infallible. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) seemed to be making tonight. He was not quarrelling or being unpleasant to hon. Members of the party opposite when he recited the facts. The facts are there to be seen.
With three very good exceptions, back benchers opposite came out of this badly. If they had all these private discussions, referred to by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire where were the Amendments that should have been proposed? We on this side had a considerable number of Amendments accepted in Committee. To a large extent this was due to the Joint Under-Secretary of State being so willing to consider the arguments and, also, I think, because he had a certain amount of delegated responsibility. Others were not accepted because, I like to think, the Secretary of State could not delegate responsibility for deciding about them. They seemed to remain in this higher immutable sphere.
Of the Amendments we discussed today on Report—I refer to the subject matter and not to the numerical aspect—for many were concerned merely with the substitution of the word "Commission" for the word "Board" thirty-eight were moved by the Government today entirely because of points presented by the Opposition. Many of them had been opposed by the Government in Committee.
Two splits took place in the party opposite during the passage of the Billl. The first was on the question of local authority finance. An English Member—the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts)—voted with us against the general grant provision. I have no doubt that, as a new Member, he was subjected to a certain amount of remonstration, to put it mildly. Perhaps he will not be tempted to do that again.
The other split was on the question whether we should include a woman on the Commission. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is not present. This second split in the Tory Party came when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) did not quite agree with his argument.

She was more inclined to listen to the Joint Under-Secretary, who himself was not sure whether we would find a woman capable enough—I think that was his phrase—to sit on the Mental Health Commission. I do not know whether he will blush deeply when he meets the lady who is ultimately appointed. I wonder if he will think that she is thinking that he is thinking that she is not capable enough to serve on the Commission. Those were the two splits in the party opposite, and I am glad to say they were stimulated by our Amendments.
We take pride in the fact that the Bill as it stands would have been a sorry creature if it had not been amended 38 times on Report and many times in Committee. Unfortunately, there are at least four legislative deficiencies outstanding. Although we are now sending it to another place I hope that the Government will give due consideration to those four points. One seems not to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State at all; it seems almost a Cabinet decision, and the Cabinet seems unsympathetic to the point of view of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can only assume that the failure to amend the aliens' Clause was due to this. I will not touch upon the others; leave them for the Joint Under-Secretary to consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) made an excellent point about the concern of Glasgow Corporation and other local authorities. I hope that the hon. Member will deal with that point, and also with the one I made to the Secretary of State concerning dual membership of the Mental Health Commission and of a board of a State-managed institution. I hope that dual membership will not occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North said that the Bill was a skeleton, and that it ought to be given flesh and blood.
That is perhaps the greatest criticism of the Bill as it stands. The Government have adopted a skeletal approach. It is lacking money, staff and buildings. When the Joint Under-Secretary was being chivvied on the question of money on Second Reading he hid behind the argument that this was just the anatomy and that we ought not to discuss the physiology of it. The living of it was not as important as its bones. That


is a foolish point of view, which happily he contradicted later in his own speech.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that he knew that the money was there. In that case, he knows more than anyone, including the Secretary of State. If the money is not provided local authorities will not be able to provide all the facilities required, with the best will in the world, however much we lecture them or educate them. We have argued this before. The powers which the Bill provides add nothing to those Which have existed for the last ten years. In his Second Reading speech the Secretary of State suggested that local authorities were, under this Bill, being given a new and extended list of statutory powers. He said:
This part of the Bill, therefore, makes it possible for local authorities as health authorities, as welfare authorities, as children's authorities and as education authorities to provide all the services that may contribute to the wellbeing of the mentally disordered in the cornmunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 257.]
I think that he made a mistake there. He should have said, "This makes it permissible, but in many cases impossible."
Many authorities are having so many demands made upon them that they will not find it possible. The proof of this assertion lies in the report of one of the most critical Committees that ever reported on a Government's progress in the silent field of mental deficiency—the Fyfe Report—which said that with the present statutory responsibility, and with the present grant system, the fact was that the community, through local authorities, were not playing their proper part. It said that about 6,000 youngsters were still awaiting admission and facilities for community care and after care in the mental deficiency world alone.
I cannot see how we can expect the Government to convince us that because we are recasting in the same mould the statutory powers which already exist we are therefore suddenly going forward with a new lease of life. I suppose that it is customary, in Third Reading debates, to make glowing perorations. There is no doubt that this is a great reform; the question is whether it will have life breathed into it, and whether the money will be forthcoming. Money

is important, and so is staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North dwelt on the provision of occupational therapists and social workers generally in regard to this matter.
In a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, subsequent to the Scottish Standing Committee which considered the Bill upstairs, we had a debate on the Health Estimates. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a comment on the Younghusband Report. He said this:
I cannot state today when we shall be taking action. I fall back on the statement that it could be shortly, but 'shortly' is to be interpreted in the normal Parliamentary sense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 31st May, 1960, c. 61.]
In the natural inquisitiveness which I have developed towards him after a long association in West Renfrewshire and Greenock, I interrupted and said, "At least two years." He replied—it is the most definitive answer we have had from any Cabinet Minister—"No".
So we know from the Government that the Younghusband Report will apparently be considered by the Government within two years. That is a fact; we know that. Yet this Bill will be implemented very soon. It is high time that the Government recruited advisers from the Conservative Central Office. I mean that, because the Conservative Central Office can seemingly make up its mind more quickly than can the Government. The Government had a Report lodged with them on 6th February, 1959. It is now 23rd June, 1960. According to the Secretary of State the Government have not made up their minds. On 31st May he said that it may be something less than two years before they make up their minds. It may be 1962, perhaps it may be 1961.
Yet there was a manifesto published on 11th September, 1959, by the Tory "research boffins"—if that is what they are called—who tell the Government what to do. On page 3 of the Conservative Party's General Election manifesto it states quite specifically:
We shall set up"—
please note that, not "we may", but "we shall"—
a National Council for Social Work Training to help recruit and train the extra social workers who will be needed.


That precise title is taken from the Younghusband Report. So there is no suggestion that it is some other council or a variant of the recommendations produced in that Report.
If, at the General Election, the Tory Party can make pledges like this, and, no doubt, catch a few votes of those who know about this and people who want to take up a career in occupational therapy and psychiatric social work, they ought to persuade their Ministers to make a decision. This is not a party point. Unless the Younghusband Report is implemented soon there will not be the training facilities to provide the people to make the provisions of the Bill a reality.
I do not blame the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He is a junior Minister who is unable to move his chief on this matter. I have no doubt that he has been arguing with his right hon. Friend relentlessly behind the scenes to try to persuade him to make a decision about the Younghusband Report soon. Presumably, such a decision will have to be made at Cabinet level. I know that there are other junior Ministers who are getting impatient because the Government have not made a statement of this character.
There is also the question of buildings. I am alarmed at the statement of the Secretary of State in this regard. He was not very worried about accommodation. It seemed that all we had to do was to decorate a few wards and put up a couple of partitions here and there, and everything would be fine. That was the impression I gained from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman about the future of mental hospitals. This is alarming.
We remember that in the debate on the Second Reading, when the Joint Under-Secretary mentioned the provision of about 800 places for mental deficiency, I wanted to know where those are to be contained. The Minister said that the new building programme was based on a very big presumption. He did not know how many mental defectives would as a consequence of the Bill be able to be released from mental institutions.
Well, nobody does know, but it is accepted that there will be a considerable number. The Minister went on to say that since there is a queue of 6,000

waiting to get in the Government were to have some 800 new places provided in three years and they expect that that would meet the situation. I wish to know whether the Joint Under-Secretary stands by that in the light of what was said by the Secretary of State today. Is he confident that 800 places is sufficient?
We shall watch the Bill go to another place with mixed feelings. We are glad that it has been improved and that we have had a responsive Joint Under-Secretary even though we have failed in four major items to shift his mentor. We are a little alarmed that no mandatory provision is provided for mental health. No adequate assurance has been given that the best facilities and the money will be available and there is this doubt about the emergence of the staff needed to sustain the whole service.
I do not expect the Joint Under-Secretary to say so, but the Opposition have done a splendid job in arguing their case. We could have had more help from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but for some reason which I do not know, perhaps for internal reasons of Tory Party strife, we did not get the participation in the discussions on the Bill from hon. Members opposite that we ought to have had. We also accept that we cannot expect hon. Members opposite to criticise their own Government in relation to the subsequent provisions of this Bill. I underline what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) on this score. We shall pursue this matter of more money for mental health relentlessly during this Parliament and when we become the Government we shall make sure that the money is provided directly as the Royal Commission recommended.
That was our pledge at the General Election and I hope that after the next election, when we shall be the Government, we shall honour that pledge. We shall pursue this question of the Young-husband Report and seek its implementation as early as possible. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will continue to fight this battle for us in the knowledge that we are behind him and will try to secure its implementation as early as possible.
I hope that when we are revising the law again, perhaps in the light of great


medical strides in the treatment and approach in the next two decades or so, we shall not have to suffer a long decade of Government inaction before, finally, they catch up with medicine. I hope that they will do it more speedily. My hon. Friends and I join in congratulating the Department and others who at last helped to see this Bill reach the light of day.

9.36 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Right hon. and hon. Members who have shared with me the rewarding experience of taking part in the discussions on the Bill at each stage will, I am sure, appreciate that I rise to wind up this evening's discussion with a deep sense not only of relief but also of the importance of the occasion.
I believe this to be an important piece of social legislation. We can all feel pride in having helped to fashion as good an instrument as possible for this great purpose. As the Bill has passed through the various stages to reach its present form, it has been clear that all of us have been guided by the same principle and that the only difference has been as to the best means of achieving the agreed end. In most cases it has been little more than the difference in colour between blush-white and off-white.
This is no occasion for me to repeat at length what has been said, and I therefore propose briefly to deal with one or two of the points which have been raised this evening. The hon. Member For Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Forman) asked about the standard of guardianship. At various stages of the Bill, he has made attempts to get a satisfactory answer to that question. I am afraid that all I can say is what I have said before—that regulations will be made covering this point under Clause 33.

Mr. Willis: That is not very helpful.

Mr. Galbraith: It may not be very helpful, but I am sure that the hon. Member did not expect a very helpful answer.

Mr. Willis: It is most unsatisfactory, as usual.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not want to disappoint the hon. Member. That is what he likes to get, and that is what he has got on this occasion.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) opened the Third Reading debate for the Opposition. I should like to thank her very much for what she said about me. I should like to congratulate her, too, on the phenomenal amount of hard work which she did. I had the official resources of the Scottish Office behind me, and even then I found it quite hard work. She had only her own work and the help of her hon. Friends, and I was most impressed by her contributions to the Bill. I felt a little sorry that at the end of her speech she indulged in a little party political flavour in referring to the fact that some of my hon. Friends did not take as large a part in the discussions as did some of her hon. Friends. She should have thanked them for that, because otherwise we probably should not be dealing with the Third Reading tonight.
The hon. Lady asked about a school in Glasgow for occupational therapy. The Regional Board has been asked to work out proposals for a new school in Glasgow. It has not yet submitted them, but my right hon. Friend regards this as a matter of urgency and he intends to see that there is no avoidable delay. The hon. Lady asked about psychiatric social workers. We are arranging to discuss with psychiatric social workers their own ideas as to how best they can be reinforced, and we will certainly consider the possibilities of extending the facilities for training on the lines which she suggested.
The hon. Lady also asked about research. If she will give me particulars of the allegation that research is being hampered by lack of money, I shall be very glad to look into it for her.
I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who unfortunately is not here. I apologise to him. I see that he is here and I am glad to see that he is still on the right side of the House. I was beginning to get a little worried about that at one stage. That is all that I wanted to say to him.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) asked questions about local authorities and payments. I can give him the assurance that local authorities will be able to recover by way of payments from the National


Assistance Board the minimum charge for residents in homes for the mentally handicapped in the same way as they now do for those in homes for the aged. The National Assistance Board has given us an assurance in that sense. That ought to be a help not only to the hon. Gentleman's own local authority but also to other local authorities in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) summed up the Bill correctly when he said that its object was to assimilate mental and physical illness. That is what we have been trying to do the whole time.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who wound up the debate, had a lot to say, as usual, and one of his questions was whether any member of the Mental Welfare Commission could also be appointed as a member of a management committee of a State hospital. The answer is, No; he cannot. I hope that that will satisfy him.
He also asked about buildings and the 800 beds which we said we should provide for defectives. I do not know precisely what the ultimate need will be, but we need at least the 800 beds we estimated, and we intend to provide them.

Mr. Willis: When?

Mr. Galbraith: Gradually.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, and, indeed, a great many hon. Members who contributed from the benches opposite, were concerned about the financing of local authorities. It seems to me that there are three separate questions—first, how local authorities should proceed; secondly, their willingness to proceed, and, thirdly, their financial ability to proceed.
On the first, the procedure is essentially that laid down by the Government in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947. It has worked reasonably well in other respects, and most authorities have done a great deal since 1947 to justify the arrangements which were then made. The local authorities themselves would certainly prefer that this pattern should be followed. I would agree with the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who in the third sitting in Committee said:

The voice of local authorities should be heard. I believe there is a misunderstanding about the attitude of local authorities…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 3rd March, 1960, c. 115.]
if it is thought that they want a change in the procedure.

Miss Herbison: It may be that some local authorities do not want a change in the procedure, but, on that third morning, facts and figures were given from our side, not from the Government side, to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) which made him think very seriously afterwards whether this item in Clause 7 should not be made mandatory.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not know whether his absence tonight is a diplomatic absence or not.

Mr. Ross: Did the Joint Under-Secretary tell my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that he intended to make that remark?

Mr. Galbraith: No, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) always takes everything that I say so seriously that it is very risky for me to say anything that is not in my brief. That makes my speech very boring to me and, no doubt, boring to the House as well. Much will depend on the local authorities' awareness of the possibilities of community care and on a full understanding of the part they can play. The Scottish Association for Mental Health is already arranging to discuss the new legislation and its possibilities at its next annual conference, and the Scottish branch of the Royal Institute of Public Administration is also proposing to hold a three-day conference next year on this subject. My right hon. Friend's Department will give all the help it can to ventures of this kind, and the medical officers of the Department will be giving increasing attention to the local authority health services in this field.
Against this background, I expect that, when the Standing Advisory Committee produces its recommendations as to the first steps which local authorities should take, most local authorities will welcome its guidance and will be anxious to go ahead.
This leads to the third problem, namely finance and whether local authorities will have the resources to go


ahead. The Opposition during the preceding stages of the Bill and again tonight have shown that they do not like the Government's method of assisting local authorities by way of general grant, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to make provision in the general grant on a scale which will enable local authorities to move forward as rapidly as they can make the necessary plans, provide the necessary buildings, and recruit the necessary staff.

Mr. Willis: What does that mean?

Mr. Galbraith: It means exactly what it says.

Mr. Willis: I have heard that statement before.

Mr. Galbraith: I am glad the hon. Gentleman admits that he has heard it before. He accused us earlier of saying one thing in Committee and another thing tonight. I am merely saying now that we are sticking to our guns. There is no reason to expect that local authorities will be short of money or that they will have difficulty, because of any restrictions on capital expenditure, in providing the necessary buildings to which the hon. Lady referred.

Mr. James McInnes: If this money is to be included within the general grant, will there be a specific entry when the orders in relation to the general grant are laid before the House so that we can see the precise amount included for this purpose?

Mr. Galbraith: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman asking that question, because the answer is, as he must know, "No".

Mr. Thomas Steele: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange that in another place the definition of "adequate" is inserted into the definition Clause?

Mr. Galbraith: No, I shall not arrange for that.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) said in Committee that the timing will have to be considered in relation to the supply of workers and the efforts made for the training and recruiting of workers to

carry out the service rather than money. I think that the hon. Lady is right. My right hon. Friend has already taken steps with a view to setting up another school in Scotland for occupational therapists. Discussions are taking place with psychiatric social workers, and the hon. Member for Greenock will be interested to hear that the position of social workers in general is under very active consideration by the Government in the context of the Younghusband Report.

Mr. Willis: How soon will that be?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend gave the answer the other day.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am beginning to wonder about that answer. When it was given, I interrupted the Secretary of State and said, "At least two years?" The right hon. Gentleman said, "No". From that answer, it could be ten years. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell me that it will be very soon.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must interpret the answer of my right hon. Friend in his own way.

Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary must be aware that unless action on the recommendations of the Younghusband Committee is taken very soon local authorities will not have to worry about money, because they will not have the workers. That should be worrying the Government and the Minister. How soon does he mean? Does he mean two years, ten years, or six months?

Mr. Galbraith: With regard to the actual timing, the hon. Lady must be satisfied with my right hon. Friend's Answer, and to supplement that I would repeat what I have said tonight, which is that the position of the social workers in general is under very active consideration by the Government in the context of the Younghusband Report, and I really would ask—

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is really more obscure than his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Galbraith: I am trying not to be obscure.
These are the separate aspects of the problem. Given the financial resources—and the Government do not believe


that there will be any real difficulty on this score in regard to their share—there is no reason to suppose that Scottish local authorities will not be anxious to move forward as rapidly as they can recruit the skilled staff for these services.
There are difficulties, but they are not to be resolved by procedural changes, and there is no reason to depart from the well-tried procedure of the 1947 Act, or to put anything into this Bill that might imply that local authorities generally would have to be compelled from the outset to play their part under this new legislation.
In conclusion, this Bill can only lay down a sound legislative framework. Its success in practice will largely depend on the action taken by the hospital authorities and the local health authorities and, above all, on the attitude of the public themselves to mental illness and the problems associated with it. There are already many signs of a considerable change in this attitude, a change that has been stimulated by the work of the B.B.C., the enlightened attitude of the Press, and the growing activities of voluntary bodies like the Scottish Association for Mental Health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to do what he can to foster this climate of opinion, and it will help that in this year, which is World Mental Health Year, we shall have the World Federation holding its conference in Edinburgh.
The public's attitude means a very great deal to the work of our mental hospitals. They can help, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway recognised, with the visiting of patients, and with the acceptance of patients coming out on visits, or on trial periods for resettlement in the community. They can help, again, by adopting a tolerant and kindly attitude to mentally-handicapped people who are able, with some assistance of this kind, to make their own way in the community and earn their own living in employment.
They can help as citizens by stimulating their own local representatives to undertake, as a local authority, the different types of provisions which this Bill envisages in order to assist the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped to come back into the ordinary community or to remain in the community without having to go to hospital.
To some extent, it is because of the public's changing attitude that some of these new possibilities of treatment and care have opened up. I feel confident that these encouraging tendencies will continue, and that the responsible authorities and the public between them will take the opportunities which this new legislation offers and make a real success of it.
It is in this hopeful spirit, and also, if I may say so, thankful spirit to the Opposition and to my hon. Friends for their help, that I wish this Bill well as it leaves our Chamber this evening on a further stage of its journey towards the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MR. D. J. ARNOLD (ARREST)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the circumstances in which a constituent of mine was recently arrested on suspicion, because the conditions out of which this arose have greatly troubled me, and the whole matter seems to me to raise one or two important issues related to the liberty of the subject.
The constituent is Mr. Derek James Arnold, whose address is known to the Joint Under-Secretary. He is a journeyman fitter-welder, married, with six young children—the youngest of them having been born earlier this week. Most of the jobs that he undertakes are away from home. Normally he works very long hours and earns a very good salary indeed.
At the time of the incident that I am about to relate he was not working because, on 15th March last, he was involved in an accident while riding his motorcycle to work and, as a result, sustained a broken left wrist and bruises to his arms and legs. Within a day or two his arm was put into plaster, and he was advised that it would be six or seven weeks before he would be able to return


to work. That was his condition on the evening of 21st March, to which I now wish to turn.
As I have said, Mr. Brooke had been accustomed to working long hours, and found his enforced leisure rather a strain. Because of this, and because of the state of his wrist, he was sleeping very badly and was, therefore, in the habit, during this period, of going off for long walks late in the evening before going to bed. Accordingly, on the night of 21st March he left home at about eleven o'clock, firstly, to buy some cigarettes at a machine outside Bellingham Station, which is quite near to his home, and, after that, to go for a walk.
He purchased the cigarettes at the machine, then he walked down to the main road, which is Bromley Road. He turned leftwards along the main Bromley Road, on the left hand side, towards the town hall at Catford—as I should have thought, a very natural place to go for a walk in that area. From this time onwards I should like to emphasise that he was walking along broad, well-lit roads, with plenty of people about, and I can myself testify from the very many evening meetings I have in that locality that those are the general conditions operating there.
He moved in a leisurely way, it is true, partly because of his injuries, and also because from time to time he stopped to look into shop windows on the way. He had a particular interest in some of them, because he had himself made purchases there. Again, I should have thought that a very natural thing for a man to do.
Having arrived at Catford Broadway, he passed the town hall and then moved up towards Catford Bridge Station. Outside one of the shops near Catford Station he bought himself some Spearmint from a machine which was there. He then thought that he had had a long enough walk and prepared to return home. By that time, he had walked about a mile, not a very long walk for an active man in his early thirties, I should have thought.
I should explain at this point that the town hall is on a triangular site, the town hall itself being at the southern end. At the apex of the island there are two pedestrian crossings, one from the station and the other joining the main

Catford Road which goes on to Bromley Road. Mr. Brooke crossed the first of the crossings and arrived at the island. He then moved over the second crossing to complete his journey across.
It was at that time about twenty minutes to 12. As he reached the second pedestrian crossing, Mr. Brooke noticed a police car stationary by the pavement alongside the road to which he was crossing. He noticed, too, that a man had been stopped by the police and was having a conversation with them. This was a quite short conversation and very soon the man moved away and, in fact, came on to the pedestrian crossing and passed Mr. Brooke on his way across. We have the name and address of that man.
Mr. Brooke then reached the pavement and turned left towards Bromley Road on his return journey, passing the police car. I emphasise that the three officers concerned were all sitting in the car at this moment. There were two uniformed officers in the front and a plain clothes officer in the back seat. As Mr. Brooke passed the car, the plain clothes officer in the back called out to him, "Where have you been? What are you doing?". I do not know how the Joint Under-Secretary of State would react, but I know that I should very strongly resent being addressed in that way in those circumstances. However, Mr. Brooke, anxious to co-operate, told the policeman that he was out for a walk and went on to explain about his damaged arm. The plain clothes policeman then replied—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Mr. C. Johnson: The police officer in the rear of the car, the plain clothes man, then replied, "Oh, you are not out"—and he then used a word which Mr. Brooke does not understand and which I can only assume was a slang word of some kind. Mr. Brooke was then asked for his name and address. This, also, he gave. It was at that point and only at that point that the policeman who throughout this conversation had been sitting in the car got out and said to


Mr. Brooke, That's a long way off. Have you got any correspondence on you?"
Mr. Brooke replied that he had not; he was wearing jeans and his old clothes. The police officer then said, "I want to search you". Naturally, Mr. Brooke objected to this. I imagine that any hon. Member would object in similar circumstances. The plain clothes officer who had got out for the purpose of this conversation was then joined by the two uniformed men who promptly seized hold of Mr. Brooke and said to him. "Now shut up and be quiet".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him, so that we may have clarification? I understood, and I believe it was so put down, that the hon. Gentleman intended to refer to the case of a Mr. Arnold, not the case of a Mr. Brooke. The hon. Gentleman had written to me about the case of a Mr. Arnold, of which the facts are very similar to those which he has put before the House this evening.

Mr. Johnson: I must apologise to the House and to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It should, of course, be Mr. Arnold throughout. There has obviously been no misunderstanding as to the particular case to which I am referring.
Mr. Arnold, naturally, was aggrieved by the action of the police officers which he thought very high-handed. Seeing a passer-by, he asked him if he would stop and be a witness to the treatment he was receiving. Here again, we have this man's name and address. This show of spirit by Mr. Arnold obviously had some effect upon the police officers for they then had a conversation between themselves. One of them then said, "You're one of the clever ones, eh? We'll show him how clever we are and will book him on 'sus'", which, I assume, means suspicion, and turning to one of the other officers, he said, "You saw him trying those door handles, didn't you?"
This was the first time that any allegation of that kind had been made. Things then moved very quickly. Mr. Arnold was jostled into the police car and taken to Ladywell police station. During the journey he was treated in a manner which I can only describe as unfriendly. Upon arrival at the police station, he was

put in charge of the C.I.D. who, he tells me, treated him very well. He was then charged by an inspector as being a suspected person and with tampering with the handles of cars.
This charge completely puzzled my constituent. He asked what cars he was supposed to have touched. The inspector replied that there were plenty of cars about—hardly, I should have thought, a satisfactory reply. At the station, Mr. Arnold took the opportunity of again protesting at the treatment he had received from the officers and particularly at having been searched.
He was put into the cells. Later, his finger-prints were taken, despite the fact that one of his arms was in plaster. I should make it clear that he was given no option at all in having his finger prints taken. Finally, he was released from the station at about 3 o'clock in the morning and told to appear at Greenwich Police Court the next morning. This he did, when the case was adjourned for three weeks. He got into touch with me about the matter as soon as he could and I at once communicated with the Home Office.
When the case was heard, three weeks later, a story was told on behalf of the police which does not at all accord with the facts which I have given to the House and which have been given to me by my constituent. It is significant, however, that after the evidence of the police had been given, the magistrate dismissed the case without calling upon the defence, saying:
I cannot convict a man on evidence like that. Case dismissed.
This seems to me a very sad and sorry story and it ought to give concern to all of us, particularly the Home Office Ministers.
There are two specific points which I wish to put to the Joint Under-Secretary of State. It seems to me that the rules covering the taking of finger prints are in a very unsatisfactory state. I suggest that consideration should be given to their review. The finger prints of Mr. Arnold are now in the custody of the police and, presumably, will remain there permanently, but surely where they have been taken and charges made against the person concerned have been subsequently dismissed there ought to


be a system whereby the finger prints are destroyed. Had they been taken under an order made under Section 40 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, in this case, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, they would have been destroyed.
This matter has been the subject of correspondence between me and the Home Office. I have been told that the Commissioner has had inquiries made and is satisfied that my constituent's allegations are not substantiated, although he did not see my constituent nor hear his story of the facts. This seems to me to leave the matter in a very unsatisfactory position. There is obviously a conflict of evidence, but why should it always be assumed by the Commissioner or, indeed, by the Minister that my constituent is telling lies and that the officers concerned are telling the truth?
I should have thought from all the surrounding circumstances of this case as I have outlined them that there is some circumstantial evidence that the police were just sitting in that car at that moment checking on anyone who passed by, and that it was purely fortuitous that Mr. Arnold came within their ambit at that moment. Had he taken an alternative route from the station he would not have come across them.
Mr. Arnold, naturally, feels aggrieved. I sympathise with him, and I hope that the House does, too. Surely there ought to be some way in circumstances like these in which, before the Commissioner or any other official dismisses a case out of hand, they should be able to face the officers concerned so that some judgment may be made between them. It is not right, in my view, that the citizen should always be thought to be in the wrong.
I yield to no one in my admiration for the police force and for the way in which, in general, it performs its duties, often in very difficult circumstances. But we have a police force because of the vigilance of Parliament in seeing that its high standard is maintained. In my view, it has not been maintained in this case and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary feels that some action on his part is called for to reassure the House in general and in particular the ordinary

citizen of Lewisham on whose behalf I have raised this matter.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: As the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, I have a case very similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) which I shall have an opportunity of bringing before the House next Monday. My hon. Friend, however, is fortunate in that the Home Secretary cannot even pretend that he has no responsibility, whereas in the case of my unfortunate constituent the right hon. Gentleman has consistently fought a rearguard action to escape responsibility.
The first point of similarity between the two cases is this. Like my hon. Friend, when the facts of my constituent's case were brought to my notice I corresponded with the Home Secretary. I also corresponded with the Chief Constable of Dudley. Exactly the same thing happened to my constituent as happened to his. There was no investigation in any true sense of the word at all. My constituent, Mr. W. J. Darby, although his evidence was in direct conflict with that of the police, was not given the opportunity to state his case or to call any witnesses. It is a travesty of a democracy that an aggrieved citizen should not be able, when he has a complaint against the Executive or officers of the Executive, to have an opportunity of putting his case before an impartial tribunal.
The next point of similarity is over the taking of finger prints and photographs. What happened to my constituent is like "Alice in Wonderland", because three times he was bundled off to the police station. It is said—and I do not believe a word of it—that this man was a volunteer, and that he was told of his rights in the matter and was warned that it was his free choice whether or not he should have his finger prints and photograph taken. I do not believe that the constituent of my hon. Friend was warned either.
I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary on a specific point. The difference between my hon. Friend's case and my constituent's case is that his was taken into custody and mine was not. When I asked whether any notices were explained or any steps were taken to warn my constituent, my attention was


drawn to a notice which was supposed to be hanging up in the police station, and I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Act requires that the photographs shall be taken at the place where the man is taken into custody. I was told that there were notices there, but, obviously, they could not be seen by a man who was not taken into custody.
I want the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us—and this is a highly relevant point, and I am sure that he will have informed himself of it—whether there was a notice in the police station where Mr. Arnold was taken into custody, and, if so, if the Joint Under-Secretary would read to the House tonight the terms of that notice. Will he also tell us whether it was printed in such large type that a person going in would be likely to observe it?
The second question is this: were any steps taken to destroy the finger prints and the photographs after Mr. Arnold was acquitted? It is perfectly clear that if, as my hon. Friend pointed out, an application had been made to the magistrate because of Mr. Arnold's refusal to have his finger prints and photograph taken, and that had been followed by an acquittal, the Act requires that they should be destroyed. In this case, it seems to me to be a clear evasion of the spirit of the Act, and it makes the law a piece of monstrous nonsense, for in the case of a man who volunteers, his finger prints and photographs are kept, but when a man refuses and application has to be made to the magistrate to take them, they are destroyed. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give the most serious consideration to the state of the law on this matter.
Here I am at one with my hon. Friend, being anxious to do all I can to support the police, particularly in the difficult times in which we live. I also want to say that the authority of the police in our democracy must depend upon the good will and the support of the overwhelming mass of our fellow citizens, and, therefore, to regain that authority there has to be evidence given that the police themselves are anxious to carry out the law which they are required to enforce.
It seems to me that on this point, and I have made the most careful inquiries,

I can find no one who, being taken into custody or charged in the circumstances of my constituent, had ever been warned of his rights in the matter of having his finger prints and photographs taken. I cannot find one. I am on firm ground from the inquiries I have made in and around my constituency. I do not believe that it is the practice of the police to warn the citizen, either in the situation of Mr. Arnold, or in the situation of Mr. Darby, of his rights in the matter.
My hon. Friend would be reassured, and I certainly would be, if the Joint Under-Secretary will give an undertaking tonight, on behalf of the Home Secretary, that, irrespective of the merits of our two cases, he will invite chief constables and give instructions in the Metropolitan area to display notices explaining the rights of the citizen when taken into custody, and that when a man is so taken into custody and charged, and the police want to take his photograph or finger prints, he should be given a written notice to the effect that his agreement to such a request is entirely a matter for his own free will. This would represent a big step forward. The rest of the merits of the case of Mr. Darby I will discuss with the hon. and learned Gentleman on Monday night

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has fired a sighter, an expression which he will appreciate, to get his eye in for Monday night, when I greatly look forward to replying to him with greater notice of some of the points he will then raise than I had of some of the points which he has raised tonight.
Hon. Members appreciate that this House, although it is the High Court of Parliament, is not a court of law. We find ourselves tonight, as frequently happens, not only in Home Office matters but in other matters, in the position where an hon. Member has put forward, quite rightly, in his full entitlement to do so, the ex parte point of view of one of Her Majesty's subjects, and I find myself as a Minister, as other Ministers have had to do, putting forward the viewpoint of authority with whom that subject of Her Majesty has come in conflict.
I will put forward the facts as we understand them, and I will make various comments upon matters of controversy to which reference has been made. It must, however, be appreciated that it is difficult for this House to adjudicate in any sense. In spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Dudley and by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson), there is the process of law in the courts upon which there can be adjudication.
Before I reply on the facts, I should mention that the hon. Member for Lewisham, South wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 14th March conveying some of the complaints which Mr. Arnold then made, but that was a month before the case was heard. After the hearing, Mr. Arnold called at Lewisham Police Station and volunteered a written statement which he made to the police and which the Commissioner has treated as a complaint to the police which it was his duty to consider as a matter affecting the discipline of police officers. I shall refer to what was put forward by the hon. Member and to the nature of that complaint.
There are some facts about which there is no dispute: namely, that Mr. Arnold was arrested by three officers of the Metropolitan Police in Catford shortly after midnight on 22nd March. The suspicion was that he was loitering with intent to commit a felony. At the time, he was on sick leave from his employment and, owing to an injury to his left arm, it was in plaster. One of the three police officers said that he wished to search him on the spot. Mr. Arnold objected to being searched, and all three police officers then got him into the police car, in which they had been patrolling, and took him to the police station, where he was formally charged with loitering with intent to commit a felony. He was searched and his fingerprints were taken. He was released on bail about two hours later.
Then the hearing of the case took place on 13th April. Mr. Arnold pleaded not guilty and in the course of the hearing a police officer gave evidence of having seen him look into the back of a parked car and try the door handles of two other parked cars. The magistrate dismissed the charge and refused an appli

cation for costs on behalf of Mr. Arnold, and it was after that that Mr. Arnold made his statement.

Mr. C. Johnson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman not confirm that the magistrate in dismissing it said, "I cannot possibly convict a man on evidence of that kind"? That, surely, is material.

Mr. Renton: I am not able, without notice, to confirm it. I am at the same time not in a position to deny it. If the hon. Member says that the magistrate said that I have no doubt that he did.
The main ground against the police in the hon. Member's speech was that the police arrested, searched and charged Mr. Arnold on a fabricated case. What I say about this is that on the facts as they came to his notice the Commissioner did not believe that anything improper was done by the police officers. Indeed, on the facts as reported by the police officers to their superiors, it seemed right to bring a case.
The police officers in the car said that they saw Mr. Arnold look into the window of a parked car. One officer in plain clothes got out of the police car and kept Mr. Arnold under observation for some time before approaching him. He saw him place his right hand on the door handles of two parked cars, one of which had some clothing in it on the back seat. The officer in plain clothes, accompanied by the uniformed officer, questioned Mr. Arnold. Not being satisfied with his explanation, the plainclothes officer told him that he was arresting him on suspicion of loitering. The fact that Mr. Arnold was acquitted on this charge does not mean, of course, that the officers were wrong to arrest him. It would be a very bad thing if that assumption were to be made either by the courts or in Parliament. If Mr. Arnold thinks that he was maliciously prosecuted, he has his remedy in the courts.
The second complaint made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South is that the police used unnecessary force in getting Mr. Arnold into the car and assaulted him during the journey. The police say that no more force than necessary was used and particular care was taken to avoid injuring Mr. Arnold's left arm which was in plaster. When


Mr. Arnold called at the police station on the day of his acquittal, he said that he had no complaints about his treatment while he was being put in the police car.
As to the suggestion that the police assaulted Mr. Arnold when he was being taken to the police station, in his original representations about the conduct of the police, as passed on to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member, Mr. Arnold said nothing about having been ill-treated then. This complaint was first made by Mr. Arnold in his statement to the police on the day of his acquittal. The police strongly deny that any unnecessary force was used. They say that Mr. Arnold had to be restrained because he was leaning forward and shouting and generally behaving in such a way that they feared that the driver's attention would be distracted, and there was no question of his having been assaulted.
It was and is suggested by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South that Mr. Arnold was forced to have his finger prints taken. The facts as I have them are that the police explained to Mr. Arnold that he was not obliged to have his finger prints taken and that he made no objection to their being taken.
It is surely mast significant that in his written complaint to the police on the day of his acquittal he did not complain about having his finger prints taken, and on the other hand said that, while he could not recollect being asked whether he objected, he had in fact made no objection. At the time of making the statement he recorded that he had no objection to make. He also said that he had no complaint whatever to make about the manner in which his finger prints were taken. We shall no doubt have to go into this question of the law relating to finger prints on the Adjournment next Monday night, because the hon. Member for Dudley has given me full notice—which the hon. Member for Lewisham, South had not given me with regard to this subject tonight—that he will raise it on Monday.

Mr. Wigg: I have every intention, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not give satisfaction, of taking this matter to the High Court.

Mr. Renton: Then the hon. Member must be very careful not to make the

matter sub judice. In the Metropolitan Police, I am told that the practice is that it is explained to people that they can object to finger printing, and that the method adopted is that a printed notice is displayed in the police station to that effect. I cannot say whether in this case and in this station concerned the notices were displayed in a way in which they were visible to the public generally and to Mr. Arnold in particular. I was not given notice about that, but I will make a note of it and get in touch with the hon. Member for Lewisham, South.
This may not be an answer which satisfies him, but it is the answer which is at my disposal and that of the Commissioner of Police with regard to the complaint the hon. Member has made, and I shall conclude by making one or two comments, because it is important they should be made, about some of the suggestions which were made in the speeches of both hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, South says that it is always assumed by the Commissioner and by the Home Secretary that the police are always telling the truth and are always right. That is a proposition which the facts do not bear out, because the Commissioner, like other chief officers of police, has his disciplinary powers to be exercised, either after receiving and considering a complaint from a member of the public, or as a result of matters which come to his notice direct. There are, alas, a number of these disciplinary charges which the Commissioner has to hear and in which he has to have findings of guilty from time to time every year. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Commissioner hesitates either to put a man on a charge or to make a finding against him. It just is not so. Of course, the Home Secretary has confidence in the Commissioner whose jurisdiction it is in the first instance.
The hon. Member for Dudley said that the aggrieved citizen should have a chance to put his case before an impartial tribunal. The remedy does lie at the suit of the citizen with regard to most matters which can be the subject of complaint against the police. He can, in so many cases, bring a civil action in court. There are other occasions when there is nothing to prevent him bringing


a criminal charge, if that would be appropriate, against a police officer. Again, there is the disciplinary procedure preceded by complaint. So when the hon. Member says that the citizen should have his chance to put his case before

an impartial tribunal, I say that I fully agree and that the opportunities are available if people care to use them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.